Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mallory Jansen

Mallory Jansen

[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)

Does not meet the requirement for WP:NACTOR. No third party coverage of the actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Billed in the main cast of a two-season American TV series automatically clinches a keep for me. Average actor article with good enough detail to pass GNG for me. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While she has had recurring roles in shows, I can't see them as "significant" re WP:ENT besides Galavant. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mrschimpf, she was not a main cast on Agents of SHIELD, if that is what you meant. INIX: Never Tear Us Apart does not seem to be a significant role as well, the plot only name drops her once and is listed only by 10th in the cast order (plus it is a miniseries so it acts more like a TV movie). I see this as a blatant WP:TOOSOON for now. Will try to look for sources in case she may pass WP:GNG because the references in the article do not establish that at all. Also the Daily Mail and IMDB references needs to be removed both. For now leaning to delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I indeed meant her role in Galavant; generally in my long time here, we've never deleted one actor's article where they've had a lead role in a Western primetime series on a major broadcast network (excepting obvious bombs where they indeed never worked 'in this town' again); the recurring role on SHIELD more than adds additional N, along with their supporting role in Shooter. We have a lot of actors that have careers filled with supporting roles with a lead/recurring here and there, and it's not anyone's fault when writers aren't writing about them; we just have to dig deeper for more sources. Again, we don't need a deep personal drive into someone in a BLP, just enough to describe their most important roles and a basic bio of them. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If she has "no third party coverage", I'd like to know what you call this, this, or this (all from the first page of search results). Series regular on one show, significant recurring role in another clearly gets her over WP:NACTOR. Pretty straightforward. Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frickeg, requirement one says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." But none of her roles could be considered major. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One is a series regular role on a show on a major US network, another a significant recurring role where she played the main villain of the season. I fail to see how these could not be considered "significant" under the terms of NACTOR. Even if they weren't, the coverage is still more than sufficient to get her over GNG. Frickeg (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]