Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Beth Hall

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Beth Hall

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Katie Beth Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actress does not seem to pass

WP:SIGCOV. The creator of the article removed the Notability tag from a couple editors (including myself), so I thought it'd be worth gaining a consensus one way or the other. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"Not being sure" is not a good reason to nominate an article for deletion. You should be pretty sure before you nominate things for deletion. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are vanity articles or articles created for a flash in the pan. This isn't one of them. No one has even mentioned her 6 episodes on Happy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaving an opening for humility and acknowledging my ability to be wrong with "not sure". If you like, I "felt confident" that the lack of in depth sourcing was not enough to meet
WP:GNG, and that her roles were not major enough to counteract that dearth of SIGCOV. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The notability test for actors doesn't hinge on the having of roles, it hinges on the depth and quality of
WP:GNG-worthy third party media. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I would call it a significant supporting role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the inclusion test for actors does not hinge on the having of roles per se. The "significance" of a role is not measured by arguing about how much screen time she did or didn't have, or how many lines of dialogue she did or didn't have — it's measured by the amount of
reliable sources. A person can be the top billed star of a movie and still not pass NACTOR if the film itself doesn't pass NFILM, because an actor isn't notable if reliable sources didn't write about the film or the actor's performance in it — because it's not the amount of screen time the person did or didn't have that distinguishes an NACTOR-passing role from an NACTOR-failing role, it's the amount of media coverage that the person's performance did or didn't receive. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it appears
    Slashfilm blog, and ComingSoon.net website. Reviews of The Hard Problem at the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theatre are collected by Playbill in 2018, and her role is mentioned in a Hollywood Reporter review without specific commentary about her performance, and noted in the New York Times as: "The cast — which also includes Nina Grollman, Tara Summers and Katie Beth Hall (as a little girl who looks a lot like Hilary) — exudes an easygoing smoothness even when plowing through the stoniest fields of metaphysics", but reviews otherwise seem focused on lead actors e.g. Vulture; Newsday; The Wrap. Beccaynr (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - clearly notable. Jack1956 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:BASIC. The Variety article is focused and in-depth, covering career highlights, and the article in its current state contains several quotes from independent reviewers commenting on her performances (e.g. in The Hollywood Reporter), which is just enough to establish notability beyond simply stating that she was cast or played in those roles. Suggest this article is expanded further with an infobox and filmography section. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - meets GNG, given the weight of some of the sources - Variety being the pretty much enough on its own, but backed up with the others there's enough there. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Variety source announces she has been cast in the reboot pilot, lists the lead actress and other cast members in the show, briefly describes what the "rebooted series revolves around", has two brief sentences describing her role, one sentence describing previous "appearances", one sentence listing her agents, and two grafs about the show generally. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Variety article's headline proclaims her casting, followed by a gigantic photo of her, and three paragraphs about her. That's SIGCOV. To argue otherwise defies reality. 3 reviews praised Hall's work in Better Call Saul, one specifically ranking her scene as one of the whole series' "Best Cold Opens". The Cinema Blend article has a whole section about her. The Screen Rant article is also primarily about Hall, mentioning her name 9 times and praising her earlier work. Plenty of coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, It's generally considered good practice to ping people when replying to one of their comments - I only came back by chance and found you had commented.
I am entirely aware of what the Variety article contains: I read it before making my comment; it is also only one of several articles on which I have based my !vote, which I make clear in my comment. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is about a source discussed by multiple participants in this discussion, and generally echoes the comments above by
WP:BASIC notability needs stronger support from secondary sources than what appears to be available. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) (replying to this version [1] Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC))[reply
]
Yes, you've posted twice on the point now, and I don't think anyone is in doubt of your position. There is no right or wrong answer in weighing these up, but my judgement is that there are sufficient sources of sufficient weight. - SchroCat (talk)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katie_Beth_Hall&oldid=1153288504"