Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen David

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen David

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

At WP:OTRS ticket:2017071010023555 the user makes a request to remove inaccurate information.

Before anyone invests labor here the article should pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). This articles seems to not pass that criteria. If someone has something to share here, then clean this, or otherwise, if the article fails to meet the minimal inclusion criteria then it needs to go. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not need to be fully deleted... yesterday it contained wrongful information which is presently still up on Google on a search for Ellen David that contains wrong D.O.B., spouse and Date of death. She is very much alive. Those errors seem to have been removed from the Wiki page,and therefore it can still remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.250.219 (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you add information to the article which establishes that this person meets the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the IMDB page for Ellen David to see significant credits, nominations, awards, etc., as well as a variety of articles about her when the name Ellen David is entered into a Google search. The offending information remains on a Google search in a box on the right hand side, and Google has been contacted and is trying to address the issue... but the offending material has been removed from the Wiki page for Ellen David, and therefore it is now fine and does not need to be deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.250.219 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Actors and actresses are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because a lot of roles are listed, or because an IMDb profile exists — they get over NACTOR when reliable source coverage about them in those roles is present to support the article. The fact that somebody hoaxed a death here is precisely the problem: because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we have no guarantee that every possible "anybody" is necessarily editing responsibly — and reliable source coverage about a person, by which we can sort out what's true and what isn't, is precisely how we control that problem. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but even a person with a valid notability claim still doesn't get to keep an article that reads this way and cites zero references for anything. Bearcat (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources[1][2][3][4][5], plus ACTRA awards, reviews[6][7][8], etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ACTRAs count as notability for an actor prior to 1986, when they were the main national award for television — but once the Gemini Awards came into being and the ACTRAs became a regional awards program, winning or being nominated for an ACTRA does not represent an automatic NACTOR pass anymore. Also, there's the principle of WP:TNT — it is entirely possible for a topic to be notable enough for an article, and yet the article that gets written is such a mess that it's better and easier to delete the whole thing and recreate a better article from scratch than it would be to actually attempt to repair the existing version. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was trying to find the significance of it, and the ACTRA Awards seem to be a regional award that has multiple branches giving out awards across Canada. She has been in a lot of roles, but would need to comb through to see which were notable movies/shows and which she had significant appearances in. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage, and that award from ACTRA-Montreal is a career award which stands as pretty strong evidence of notability in a major cultural market. I don't think TNT is required here: this was a typical stub until it was vandalized (and repaired) recently, and now that's been fixed. The long list of credits can be edited if and as appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime achievement or not, it's still a local award which doesn't confer an WP:NACTOR pass in and of itself — we require national level awards, such as Oscars, Emmys or Canadian Screen Awards, for that. She would still have to be sourced over WP:GNG to get an article, because nothing claimed in it constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie — and even as a "typical" stub it's still a badly written article that would take too much work to sort out. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2017 (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.