Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemma Dallender

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Dallender

[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 biography. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the multiple, indepdent, 3rd-party reliable secondary source coverage needed to pass the general notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The following is the coverage I found about Dallender:

She is mentioned in a Bloody Disgusting article. [1]
She appears in two London FrightFest Film Festival 2013 interviews [2] [3].
She appears on an interview with a blog [4].

I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage per WP:GNG, nor do I believe this qualifies Dallender for any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. userdude 03:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject passes WP:NACTOR—she had a lead role in I Spit on Your Grave 2 and a main role in Contract to Kill, among other films, and she has also had a few recurring roles in TV shows. I think an argument can be made for passing WP:GNG, too, because her acting is reviewed in a number of reliable sources, including:

→ https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-i-spit-on-your-grave-review-20130920-story.html – Los Angeles Times

→https://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-2-review-1200652161/ – Variety

→https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/contract-to-kill-2016 – rogerebert.com

She also gets mentions in various other Los Angeles Times, Variety and Deadline articles. In addition, I would add that the fact that the films listed above weren't well-received—in fact, nor was the subject's acting, at times—is not relevant to the question of notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: Please note that John Pack Lambert's "delete" vote was cast one minute after the AfD was created, so I'm not sure how thorough a WP:BEFORE could have been performed in that short period of time. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need comment on additional sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per the sources and roles listed by Dflaw4. She easily passes WP:GNG and so the article should not be deleted. As an aside, I also believe she passes WP:NACTOR.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:41, 7 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.