Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akosua Amo-Adem

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akosua Amo-Adem

[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)

Semi-advertorialized article about an actress, not adequately referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. The only notability claim being made here is that she has had acting roles, which isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage -- and the only new thing that could be added is that she was one member of a cast who were nominated for (but did not win) an ensemble award at Toronto's theatre awards in 2018, which still isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability.
But for sourcing, four of the nine footnotes are her primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of theatre companies she's worked for, which are not notability-supporting sources as they aren't independent of her; a fifth is a magazine piece she wrote about herself in the first person, which is not a notability-supporting source; and a sixth just glancingly namechecks her existence without being about her to any non-trivial degree. There are just two footnotes here (one of which is redundantly repeated as two distinct footnotes) which say enough about her to count toward GNG, and that's not enough. (I've also had to remove one other footnote, a video in which she was the interview guest on an unreliable and non-notable YouTube channel, which is also not a reliable or notability-supporting source.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and/or better sources than this, but nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, is already good enough today. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find how many episodes of "Kim's Convenience" she's been in, which would be what makes her notable or not. I think it was a bit part. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to IMDB, she was in 25 episodes (out of 65 total) of "Kim's Convenience," which is more significant than a bit part. But I did have a tough time finding many reliable sources about her, so it may be true that she isn't notable according to WP:NACTOR. I appreciate your guidance with this! Rynb99 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Weak Delete I've removed a couple duplicate sources in the article, leaving it with a total of 7. The breakdown that currently leaves us with is as follows: three of the sources constitute third-party coverage (1, 5, 6), and the remainder are primary - either self-published by this individual or profiles from her projects or theaters she's worked with. Nothing mentions the Kim's Convenience role in much more than passing. A search of other news articles returns only two pages of search results, and most of those are simply mentions of the name in credits or cast lists. There simply isn't enough coverage of this person as of right now, I believe. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2021 (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.