Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberlea Berg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberlea Berg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, The article's been unsourced since its creation (2007) and there's nothing on Google - not even 1 mention, They appear to meet NACTOR however they fail GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG - no reliable secondary coverage of the subject.Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending more research. The argument "They appear to meet NACTOR however they fail GNG" is illogical, the NACTOR guidelines explain how an actor's credentials establish the presumption of notability to meet GNG. Here, we have quite a number of credits and a continuing, consistent role in a series. Just because she may have only been a child actor does not mean she is insufficiently notable to have a WP article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was talking source wise, Starring in tons of programmes is great but if there's nothing sourceise that confirm this then it shouldn't have an article - Tagging it under "unsourced" is great but again it doesn't make anyone cite the article nor does it magically make sources appear online, Ofcourse if you or anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 04:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing establishes that she exists and voiced these shows if that is what you are asking. IMDb isn't RS for us, but it does verify, add to that what looks like another database that is shows basically the same credits: [1]. Looks like she had a leading role in the UK version of this Disney series, working for Disney is nothing to sneeze at. I'll acknowledge that we don't have a lot here, but I'm in the states and I'm having difficulty getting my searches to turn up UK instead of US sites (a different child voiced the character of Darby in the USA) Voicing cartoons is an area of acting we should not be dismissing out of hand here, but it is frustrating to dig up the database info. Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately IMDb cannot be used in articles and this article cannot rely solely on one source (technically it can but it ends up at AFD eventually anyway). –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per Montanabw's comments. If there is sourcing that verifies the WP:NACTOR-meeting claims, then it is notable.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just this minute said the article cannot be dependant on one source, if there's not even so much as mentions then this BLP doesn't warrant an article at the moment (I'm more than happy for it to be redirected which would preserve the history but as it stands they're not notable at the moment). –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Ok, then it fails WP:GNG. I'm satisfied. Delete this article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person appears to be notable, this person should be notable, however, there's nothing out there in the sourcing to show that she actually is notable. She's a working actress. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.