Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bernath

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. Consensus is that this meets WP:NACTOR, and probably the WP:GNG as well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Bernath

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

NN actress with mostly minor roles and no significant coverage. There are plenty of news hits but almost exclusively single mentions aside from one small blurb on BBC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress with minor roles. Nothing of note here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn’t LinkedIn .Daps166 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2018 (GMT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's had the female lead in at least two films (Kisna and Stalled), and in the TV show Trinity. She had a profile in the Sunday Times. A superstar she is not, but this is notable enough for my sensibilities. I propose we mark the article for serious revision (the tone is not encyclopedic), but not deletion. Kenirwin/(talk) 18:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added citations. Bernath passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough sources have been added to establish notabililty. PamD 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure?

this is a single mention of her name, nothing more.

This is a blog.

This is not coverage, it's the equivalent of imdb listings.

This is a WaPo opinion piece.

None of this amounts to significant in-depth coverage and doesn't verify much of anything in the article aside from the fact that she's had minor roles. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you describe as a "single mention of her name" also describes her character as the central character in the TV series: "The storyline will follow character Charlotte Arc, played by St Trinian's Antonia Bernath". So while it is not robust coverage of her, it does demonstrate that she played a significant role. That, together with some theatrical leads does not strike me as merely "minor roles". - Kenirwin/(talk) 18:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Assuming the Sunday Times article really is a profile, ~~and not an interview,~~ that, combined with the other sources, seems to fulfill WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How would an interview article not establish notability. I checked WP:GNG, and it says nothing about interviews not counting. Ross-c (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: An interview would not meet the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I've checked WP:GNG, and that's not what they mean by independent. This is the text: '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.'. An interview is none of those. Ross-c (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ross-c:'s reading of WP:GNG. The content itself is not entirely independent of the subject because they are interviewing her, but it is being published by a reputable, independent source. And as far as the idea of notability goes, a subject should not be less notable because of the format of the coverage by a major newspaper. (I distinguish this from the verifiability of the content -- I would prefer for my facts not to come directly from the subject or her agent, except where framed as "what she had to say about her experience.") -Kenirwin/(talk) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could've sworn that not counting interviews was part of WP:NBIO, but I must've been thinking of WP:NMUSIC instead, which doesn't count "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" as inferring notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources above - meets NACTOR and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources include several world-class newspapers.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 30 April 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.