Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Bailly

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 delete. Sandstein 07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bailly

[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)

Possibly non WP:GNG actress. No third party sources can be found, either in the article, or by searching. IMDB isn't a notable source. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 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) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid. I can't find a thing thing. There is a couple in French newspapers but they are not the subject. scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Her performances have been reviewed. See this review of her Shakespear performance. Other reviews include:

"LAST WEDDING.(Review)"; Eisner, Ken; Variety, Sept 10, 2001, Vol.384(4), p.58
"'14 Hours'.(Movie Review)"; Richmond, Ray; Hollywood Reporter, April 1, 2005, Vol.388(27), p.10(2)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, her Shakespeare performance seems to be a minor role and there is only one mention of her in the link you provided. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third in the cast list but it seems to be a play that is a spoof of Shakespeare Atlantic306 (talk)

But the reference only mentions her once and isn't about her. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors do not automatically pass WP:NACTOR just because roles happen to be listed — the notability test is the ability to demonstrate the significance of the roles through the use of reliable source content that singles them out for attention, but the sources listed above aren't sufficient. The Shakespeare book gives her exactly one sentence in a review of a play, technically verifying that she had a supporting role in a minor local theatre production, but not substantively enough about her performance to clear the bar all by itself if it's the best you can actually do. The Last Wedding review just mentions her name in the fine-printed complete credits block at the very end right alongside everybody else who was in the film at all, and doesn't give her even one word of space in the actual body text of the review itself — and her role in that film was a bit part as an unnamed receptionist, not a starring role significant enough to count toward NACTOR. I can't find the Hollywood Reporter review of 14 Hours at all to verify whether it focuses on her performance or just mentions her name, but it would still be subject to the same issue as the other two sources. We're not looking for sources which offer technical verification that roles have been had — we're looking for sources which demonstrate the significance of the roles by singling her performances out for dedicated attention. And even on a ProQuest search, I'm finding nothing else: I get nine hits total, eight of which are glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that say literally nothing else about her, and the one that's slightly stronger is just a repeat of the same review that was excerpted in the Shakespeare book, and thus isn't a new second source. This is simply not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of one time appearances on TV shows do not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all her roles are so small I can't even tell if they are red shirts. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to the nomination: actors need to meet WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", not WP:GNG. Third party sources (by which I presume independent, reliable sources) can indeed be found - I have just added two to the article. She has certainly had starring roles, as in Bong of The Dead, but whether that is notable is debatable. Contemporary listings for Good Luck Chuck say "Starring Jessica Alba, Dane Cook, Dan Fogler, Michelle Harrison, Simone Bailly", and I'm not sure why IMDB and the Wikipedia article rate the importance of the roles/actors differently. Bailly's role in the 4th and 5th seasons of The L Word was significant. I will see what else I can find, and try to improve the article a bit. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting NACTOR still requires sources, so there isn't as much of a conflict between meeting NACTOR and having to meet GNG as you seem to think there is. A person inherently fails the former if they haven't simultaneously passed the latter, in fact — every actor who exists at all could instantly exempt themselves from actually having to have any sources if all they had to do was invoke the words "major roles", which is precisely why we rely on reliable source coverage to tell us, by virtue of singling her and her performance out for more attention than just invoking her name in a cast list, whether the roles were "major" or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia:Notability, which says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (my emphasis). What's the point of having subject-specific guidelines if all subjects have to meet WP:GNG?? Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all subjects have sources, so there is no possibility of actors "instantly exempt[ing] themselves from actually having to have any sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has properly notability-supporting sources, then by definition they pass GNG. If a person does not have properly notability-supporting sources, then by definition their notability claim has not passed the verifiability test, and can't be kept on those grounds regardless of what the article merely claims, but fails to properly source, as being their notability claim. That's always how notability works on Wikipedia: it's not the things the article says, it's the quality and depth and range of sourcing that can be provided to support the things the article says. It's not the words "major role", it's the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to demonstrate that the role was "major" enough to fulfill the criterion. Even minor walk-on roles can be technically verified by directory listings and credit blocks at the bottom of Variety reviews — so the majorness of a role is demonstrated by sources which focus on the actor and their performance in the body text, not just by the ability to technically verify that a role was had. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 December 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.