Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Cheeseman

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. Tone 16:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Cheeseman

[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 a television director, not properly sourced as clearing our notability criteria for television directors. This has been flagged for referencing since 2009 without improvement, the claim that she won a Primetime Emmy is unverified even by her IMDb page let alone any actual reliable sources, and the one thing listed under external links that is technically a reliable source is not coverage about her, but coverage about a very general issue that just briefly soundbites her personal opinion on it. So, as always, this could be recreated if somebody were willing to tackle writing and referencing it properly, but a decade in this state is not okay if nobody's even trying to improve it at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few passing mentions in RS, but nothing substantial. The Primetime Emmy seems to be entirely false, as Cheeseman doesn't even list it on her own website. Nanophosis (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Changing vote as BAFTA win means subject passes GNG. My original vote was due to the absence of substantial coverage, only brief mentions in otherwise unrelated articles, as I didn't see any potential for improvement from stub class. Nanophosis (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BAFTA award is a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A BAFTA win has to be reliably sourced before it translates into grounds to keep an article. I could get an article about me kept by claiming to have won a BAFTA, if just saying the word BAFTA exempted me from actually having to prove that I was telling the truth. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duffbeerforme, winning a BAFTA strongly suggests notability as it is a significant feat within the field. Article needs work but I think we should spare it for now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have sourced the BAFTA to BAFTA's own website, as RS as they come. PamD 22:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO Award winner and widely recognized contribution. WP:ATD was WP:BEFORE done? Lubbad85 (☎) 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nanophosis Subject does list the major award on personal website Lubbad85 (☎) 15:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85 I may be missing something, but I still don't see a mention of winning a Primetime Emmy there (which is what I was talking about, not the BAFTA). I will strike that bit if I'm proven wrong, which could very much be the case. Nanophosis (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the Emmy. I thought you did not see the BAFTA. The BAFTA is a significant award. I do not think she needs an Emmy to be GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I edited the Emmy claim out of the article, so it was easy to miss. I'm going to strike and vote for weak keep, as the BAFTA makes her notable. Cheers, Nanophosis (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (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.