Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winifred Freedman

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 April 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. At this time this is a WP:BLP that cites only IMDB and no reliable sources. Deletion is therefore mandatory. The article can be recreated if better sources are cited. Sandstein 12:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Freedman

[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 actor. Some hits but nothing I could find that would indicate notability. Currently sourced with just IMDB. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actresses. IMDb is not a reliable source. We really need to make "IMBD only source" grounds for speedy deletion that can only be overcome if one reliable source is added to the page. The article should never have survided the prod back in 2008. That some of her roles were characters that had names and spoke is no where near the threshold for determining a "significant" role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy deletion is a serious process that usually requires egregious misuse of the encyclopedia or obvious rule-breaking. This is why insufficient sources is not usually enough to go straight to speedy deletion with no cleanup or oversight. In my experience, there have been many pages sourced solely with IMDb that turned out to more than meet notability guidelines with a bit of searching. The reason we have AfD is to weed out the articles that can be improved from the ones that just have to be cut.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although it seems like there should be more coverage for such a prolific, if not starring, actpr, I only found a couple of sources, not enough to meet notability guidelines.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real sourced content WP:N, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm tentatively voting "Weak Keep" while I wait for some sources to come back from WP:RX. I think the subject has just enough supporting roles in notable films plus a main role in Joanie Loves Chachi to make a weak case for WP:NACTOR, and I've also been able to ascertain (via newspapers.com) that she's had some main roles in plays. My vote is ultimately going to depend on the quality of the sourcing. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources, two of which span over two pages: here, here, here, here, and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dflaw4. She played a leading character in a TV show that pops up often in trivia contests and memes, a show everyone loves to hate that wasn't that bad. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 15 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.