Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Wheeler (2nd nomination)

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. Every keep !vote other than the first is given very low weight for being "per X", but the suggestion that NACTOR has not been met was successfully refuted by MoviesandTelevisionFan. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Wheeler

[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)

Same reasoning as 3 months ago - she had a 22 episode role in the 1998 series Two of a Kind but not much after- has 11 credits total per IMDb with not many if any being significant roles and not many resources aside from a Bustle article I found. Most of the other articles are just mentions of her. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, with also meeting WP:NACTOR with her role in Two of a Kind and perhaps her stage performances too. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article needs a lot of clean-up for grammar, redundancies ("She did x. After x, she did y"), WP:OVERLINKing of place names, etc., and to properly link the names of the stage shows that she was in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers:, @Oaktree b: - you consider 11 credits from the span of 1998-2014 significant enough for her own wiki page? Most of the roles are as minor characters that don’t get more than 1 episode. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 22 episodes of Two of a Kind and the other body of work along with other reliable sources seem to satisfy. She was also in a Lyrica commerical (per the Bustle article) in which the manufacturer spent several millions dollars to promote, she's probably more remembered from that these days. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. I will add that whatever the outcome of this is, I'll be fine with, I just want all facts to be known before a decision is made. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the significance of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reasons above, seems to be superfluous nomination with no merit. article is well sourced and relevant.

TVHead (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TVHead: - instead of just repeating others arguments, are you able to tell me how she does meet GNG and NACTOR? As I've said above but noone responded to, the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. Would you care to explain your reason for the Keep vote? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus my reasoning is above, and seems to be the consensus (again). Thanks for the reply. TVHead (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn’t explain your reasoning (again) or respond to my question. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you disagree with the consensus (for the second time). However arguing with me over my own view isn't helpful. TVHead (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just frustrating because noone will explain their vote. All youre saying is whatever the others arguments are instead of explaining how she meets GNG and NACTOR when I’ve pointed out that she doesn’t. Like if I’m wrong, I’m wrong and her page will stay and that’s fine but noone is responding to me and the points I’ve made. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 13 February 2022 (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.