Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Ambler

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Ambler

Rachel Ambler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable actress. According to IMDb, appeared in a grand total of 7 productions (5 television shows and 2 television movies) over a 20-year timespan. Speedy-delete was contested on grounds that some of these were "popular national TV shows", however that argument seems weak given that she appeared on Coronation Street only 4 times in 3 seasons. No information in the article other than her acting credits. No reliable sources cited, so fails the multiple independent coverages required by WP:BIO. Valrith 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:BIO; "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Was a repeating cast member in both Coronation Street and Emmerdale, two of the most popular soap operas in history. --Oakshade 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Oakshade, she appeared less than five times in each of those shows mentioned. If Rachel Ambler were merged to either of those someone would take them out for being irrelevant, and if the article wasn't merged it would stay a stub for an indeterminate period of at least a year and quite possibly forever.Lotusduck 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Besides appearing multiple times on those popular TV shows (6 times actually - 4 on Coronation Street and 2 on Emmerdale), she also has roles in The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Harry, Hetty Wainthropp Investigates and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, all very popular television series and solidifing passing WP:BIO (ulness we decide to IGONRE WP:BIO). Also, "notability" is permanant. --Oakshade 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that notability is permanent and I argue that it isn't present. She appears in each of the things you just mentioned in only one episode each. Unless you plan to add "multiple independent coverages" by published sources to her article, you are the one who is ignoring WP BIO.Lotusduck 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Adhering to the exact WP:BIO guideline quoted above. See WP:BIO - Entertainers. I'll repeat the guideline here (since it's being ignored) "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." And per your own admission, she's appeared in at least ten episodes of very popular shows. --Oakshade 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Comment This argument has raised its head before and I think WP:BIO needs to be clearer about it - you can't take the sentence "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." without also including the next one: "Notability can be determined by.... Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers / A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following / A credible independent biography / Wide name recognition / Commercial endorsements of notable products". Otherwise, every actor who has appeared in Coronation Street for ten seconds standing in the background is notable. And Ms.Ambler doesn't appear to hit any of those categories. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Only that Ms. Ambler wasn't in these shows for 10 seconds in the background, but a principal guest performer playing important characters in them. The ambiguous and contradictory multiple clauses of WP:BIO that can be interpreted many ways was always an issue with me, but that's an argument for another page. --Oakshade 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• But WP:BIO isn't ambiguous, just badly phrased - it clearly states what notability factors are suitable. If you take your argument as correct, then WP:BIO also states that ALL "scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" are notable. You must have notability per the bullet points. Rachel Ambler does not pass this. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• She passes the bullet point of Entertainers to the letter. Adding the sentence you quoted ("Notability can be determined by.... ") does not negate the first and primary sentence of that clause. --Oakshade 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the text above the bullet points? Even ignoring the primary notability criterion, the Special Cases section states The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Where's the "good deal of verifiable information"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Oakshade's arguments. Edison 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• See my point above. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Here's the thing, on one hand, I think that's enough appearances to pass WP:BIO if she were a guest star, but she's not. She might be notable if these 7 productions were over a 3 year period, but they are over 20 years. Further, there's no additional information about her, other than the appearances. What makes her notable other than just being on the show? Does she have wide name recognition? I don't think so. It's tough, I feel like this is sort of borderline, but I just cannot go with keep on this one, due to lack of notability, lack of sources, and lack of growth potential beyond stub status. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The criterion noted by Oakshade is one of a number of indicators that the individual may have achieved notability. The primary notability criterion - and actually the only one that matters - is: has this individual been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? No evidence is presented that they have. This looks like a generic bit-part player, perfect for IMDB but not for Wikipedia due to lack of secondary sources. 125 unique Googles outside Wikipedia is not a good sign, especially since quite a number (most, I think) are unrelated, Wikipedia is top Google hit, also not a good sign, and only three images on Google image search(!). Merge to a list of minor Enemadale actors if you like. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy, fails the primary notability criterion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No, not every filler actor is automatically notable. >Radiant< 10:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources are cited, per Guy. --kingboyk 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Fails criterion at this time... - Denny 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. Wickethewok 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The references/sources are trivial. 220.227.179.4 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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.