Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Conway

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Conway

[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)

Non notable child actor with no evidence of independent secondary sources. Currently a mirror of IMDB, it’s only source Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Forest Rangers, her first and most significant series. Without prejudice to recreating if further sources found, especially offline. Dl2000 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just cannot see she has did more work than as a child actor and is too minor for an article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject had significant roles in a few TV productions, and though it's difficult to gauge the notability and popularity of those shows, there is probably enough to scrape through under WP:NACTOR. At newspapers.com, there are many newspaper clippings which provide coverage that exceeds mere mentions. Here are a couple of sources; the second is more in-depth than the first: here and here. I think that, with some work, the article could meet, or get close to meeting, WP:GNG. I'd welcome any feedback from other voters, including Dl2000, Chris.sherlock and John Pack Lambert. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that an advert? Just curious.... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what the first one is, to be honest, Chris.sherlock. I wasn't to access it until I applied at WP:RX, and I chose it because it seemed a reasonable-sized chunk of writing. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find stronger sources. I'll grant that there are roles here that have the potential to pass WP:NACTOR if they were sourced properly, but the mere having of roles is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have reliable sources. However, if we assume that the two clips listed above are the best sources Dflaw4 could find, then the ability to find two short blurbs in the TV listings (which, depending on the publication, did routinely used to run random infoboxes like that which gave a brief blurb's worth of information about a cast member in a show that was airing that day) just isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2020 (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.