Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixie Davies (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Davies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Let’s start with the obvious. The article does not cite any sources. I tried looking for any reliable sources but I’ve turned up nothing, which I chalk up to her being a child actress at the very beginning of her career. I looked at the first AfD for this page before coming here and they decided to keep because she meets NACTOR. So now we’re in a situation where we have to decide if career specific notability guidelines (NACTOR) is greater than the need for reliable citations for verification (GNG). As far as I’m concerned, I see this page as a much too soon, regardless. Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is about the broader notability guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) is thataway. Pretty much no one accepts that a single AfD is some binding notability guideline update. (Neither does the nominator, obviously, since they are rejecting a previous AfD.) The subject meets WP:NACTOR#1 with verifiable "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." There are sources available for verification and expansion, including the ones that Lourdes pointed out in the last AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one added them and the article stands empty of any references. Looking at the history of the article, the only references put since the first AfD was IMDb (unreliable therefore removed), FamousBirthdays (unreliable therefore removed), her Instagram account (unreliable therefore removed), and MovieWeb (unreliable therefore removed). If the sources Lourdes suggested had been added, Davies it still wouldn’t expand the article in any way. All that book offered was a trivia tidbit for for IMDb. The lead has a POV issue and is nothing more than a sentence rendition of what’s in the filmography table. Where is her career section? Trillfendi (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why do we have to decide "if career specific notability guidelines (NACTOR) is greater than the need for reliable citations for verification (GNG)"? (Though that is not all of what WP:GNG actually says - it says WP:SIGCOV, which is different to WP:V.) We don't need to decide that because WP:NACTOR specifically does not include any mention of coverage, unlike other career specific guidelines (WP:AUTHOR #3, for example). As for "at the beginning of her career", she's been acting for 6 years, and has just had yet another major role! Please stop wasting our time with nominations of people who clearly meet career specific guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acting for 6 years, 12 years old. Do the math on that. As for “wasting your time”, one could surmise that you’re wasting your time even being here in the first place. What it comes down to is this article has absolutely no references in it at all whether it relates toverification of roles stated here, notability, or anything. It cannot stay that way for as long as it has; and previous references put there were all unreliable. So I proposed deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article has references now, and nominatior seems to have an issue with our notability guidelines, which is far outside the scope of an AFD. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JDDJS: I don’t have an issue with it, I’m just perplexed as to how the article was initially kept with NO references whatsoever, whether to verify roles or identify notability or anything at all. That’s the issue. (Having roles doesn’t automatically meet NACTOR). Trillfendi (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant role in significant film. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, presumably it will be, the article cannot be just a filmography with citation overkill. That’s not how it’s supposed to be. There has to be a career section with references. Trillfendi (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With children we should err on the side of privacy, and neither the roles nor the coverage overcome this issue here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR as now verified by the addition of multiple reliable sources in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's been in more productions than a lot of actors who already have their own articles. Bkatcher (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2019 (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.