From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was speedy keep/Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 17:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hollie Chapman

Hollie Chapman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, No evidence of notability - Trivial mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Veto, Main cast in a series, which was aired international. And a long time main voice in The Archers of the BBC, which is also known international. Here and there little roles. It's enough. -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 20:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Being in a show that aired internationally means nothing - Many actresses have been in the exact same spot as Hollie and most if not all have been deleted regardless, Also just to note you were the creator so ofcourse you'd !vote Keep .... I still maintain she fails NACTOR as well as GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 20:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I see it still different, but I have made the article shorter. I must say it was one of my first articles I have made, to a topic I think it was clear that the relevance is there. I think she is relevant because Do not blame Me was an international aired series, especially in Australia, Germany and England. And she plays a role in the Archers, how I said above. All the other things are interesting, nothing more. I think that it is "not" common that such actor article are erased in the past etc. How ever the clicks on it also not less: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-30&pages=Hollie_Chapman I think since 2009 the article was clicked by a lot of persons. I suppose, today persons which looking for her in general to the BBC-Acting. However I think the article is useful and relevant. -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 20:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Having significant regular cast member roles on both The Archers and Don't Blame Me already indicates passing WP:NACTOR. The significant coverage from the Melton Times and another BBC piece further indicates notability. [1] -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I would hardly call a role in a 5 month tv programme as "significant" ....,
This is a great source however being in one programme combined with this one source should not be any justification for keeping an article, If you could provide reliable and independent sources that establishes notability I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 21:11, 25 Feb
26 episodes is most certainly significant. Original network airing duration is just a red herring. -- Oakshade ( talk) 21:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I disagree, 26 isn't really much at all. – Davey2010 Talk 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Not sure you understand the television business, but 26 episodes is more than an average entire season. Fawlty Towers had literally 12 episodes total with an original airing duration cumulating less than 2 months. The Office had only 14 episodes total. This person was the star of a show that even you admit is a 26 episode show with its initial airing going 5 months. By emphasizing this person stared in a 26 episode series and that show's original airing duration is actually further demonstrating notability. -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the number and extent of her roles and the coverage are enpugh to meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
One reliable source and the extent of her roles are certainly not enough, I have no objections to merging but as it currently stands there isn't any evidence of notability and as such there's no justification for keeping thus far. – Davey2010 Talk 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment interviews like one of the BBC links provided are primary sources and self-promotion that don't count towards notability, which requires secondary sources. While Melton Times does base some of its content on the subject's own commentary, it provides some other material of its own. Not sure how much that counts for when one takes away her quotes. Spotlight isn't very useful when it just contains listings rather than substantive coverage on Chapman, and I don't even see her name mentioned in this URL. One legitimate secondary source by itself isn't enough for a separate article even if its coverage is considered significant without her own comments, so unless someone can find more quality unaffiliated references going into more than just brief mentions of Chapman (preferably more than a paragraph), I'd be inclined to say delete or merge. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Which doesn't establish notability, Which part of NACTOR and WP:BASIC does she meet ? .... – Davey2010 Talk 14:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Well it's certainly one instance of "significant roles in ... notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", for starters. Or are you going to claim that radio doesn't count? Pam D 15:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
And a 16 year stint (see here) in one role seems to me to be the equivalent of "multiple" roles, in spirit if not in letter. Pam D 15:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Off topic.
You will not and understand what is clear above. Such destroy-edit says anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hollie_Chapman&type=revision&diff=827758439&oldid=82775497 Beside that the section on your personal page "Articles I've rescued" looks funny, I can nothing see what was rescued in the history, you have only enlarged. ;-) Not serious. But however. We use the imdb again and again and is not so, that it is not usable at a source. It is only so, that whe should compare it also with other sources etc. Your citation-command makes not really sense. ;-) -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 15:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I understand perfectly thanks!, Go and read WP:Citing IMDB, I'm not sure what my userpage has to do with anything but if you look at [2] [3] [4] [5] you will clearly see I've rescued those articles .... so contrary to popular belief I'm not one these deletionists that wants rid of every single article here .... but on the otherhand we should balance things and ask ourselves "Is this person really notable?" .... my answer to that is no however apparently everyone thinks otherwise .... I'm not going to argue with consensus it is what it is ...... As Snuggums has gone with delete I can't really withdraw so it has to remain open. – Davey2010 Talk 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Well If I didn't "enlarge" (ie cite) those articles they'd all face deletion wouldn't they .... so I would say I have rescued them (ie rescued them from deletion) ..... – Davey2010 Talk 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I have read it to the imdb. Look above etc. If you don't like the IMDB in general for usage in the wikipedia, and you mean you are right? Than your next step will be that all imdb-links will be erased by yourself. Perfect Vandalism-View. :-( Sorry, but I clicked on some articles, "you" are meaning you have rescued ... ;-) However. I don't think that your erase-ideas to this article are useful. -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Consensus is to not cite IMDB .... I don't make the policies my friend I just follow them, Most BLPs don't have IMDB as a source but if they do and if i'm working on that article then yes I'll replace it but if I'm not working on it then it gets left as is, As for "erasing" ..... theoretically that's the whole point of AFD .... to have deleted "non-notable" subjects ....Again what I percieve to be non-notable may not be seen as such by different editors.... Ofcourse I disagree with everyone here but that's what consensus is all about .... Going with what everyone says even if you disagree ..... – Davey2010 Talk 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The word "Consensus" is not to read on the page Citing IMDb your view is a unreasonable overinterpretation. It is clear that you have problems to understand the page and so on. You don't want "not cite IMDB" so it is clear, that at last you will kick all imdb-entries from the wikipedia out, because you mean it's to less serious. Logic and so on. But it is also clear that you will erase parts of the article, so is your hope that the article quality is at last weaker and so on. But the relevance is still there and so on. -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor, Also what the actual hell are you babbling on about ? .... WP:Citing IMDB clearly states and I quote:
"Inappropriate uses
IMDb content inappropriate to reference on Wikipedia:
  1. Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs).
  2. Cast lists, etc. for films and television programming that are still in development or production, and have yet to premiere.
  3. The user comments for each title (this includes user reviews and ratings), which are pure user-generated content.
  4. Sections written in wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ), the :::::::#parental guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
  5. Newsgroup reviews, which are archived Usenet postings.
  6. The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions.
  7. The recommendations.
So maybe you should stop questioning my competence and start looking at your own competence (or incompetence in this case). – Davey2010 Talk 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
See above. The reason why you will not that people will read it, so you have placed the "collapse bottom" is clear. Good to see how you are working. -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 16:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
There were a lot erased by the user Davey, compare there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hollie_Chapman&type=revision&diff=827758439&oldid=827754975 He means he is true and placed the collapse bottom after the discussion to the sense of his edit and so on. -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Removing content and sourcing -not just IMDB sources - just before or during an AfD is not cool and is bad form. I fail to see how an editor is concerned about the validity of mainspace content sources of an article they want to delete. I’ll revert the sources erasing. All editors can look at the article in its pre-erased content state and come to their own conclusions.-- Oakshade ( talk) 03:21, 27 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollie_Chapman&oldid=1108835836"