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. --
Scott (
talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:NACTOR since she has not had significant roles in multiple productions. Subject does not meet
WP:NAUTHOR since her only published work was not widely discussed by independent, reliable sources. Subject fails
WP:GNG because she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. This article attempts to establish notability through
WP:REFBOMBING and reads like a CV. -- PS. I found another Rachel Galvin when performing
WP:BEFORE, that other one is a poet.
RetiredDuke (
talk) 21:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Now with the analysis of sources (only 56 of them)
1: subject not mentioned
2: press release, by the subject, of a non-notable musical
3: IMDb reference, showing that the subject was uncredited as a minor character in an episode of a TV series
4: subject's IMDb page (not a reliable source). Lots of uncredited parts, minor parts and shorts. No significant roles on sight.
5: Youtube. A 6-minute production, not independent
6: website by the subject, not independent coverage
7: Youtube, not independent
8: Kickstarter? Not RS
9: IMDb, again, not reliable
10: Talent management website, can't spot mention of subject anywhere
11: subject's personal blog
12: 404
13: the subject's magazine again, not independent coverage
14: apparently the subject is editor here, not independent
15: 404, award does not seem notable since I can't find much about it
16: leads to the front page of a local newspaper, subject not mentioned
17 to 42: works by the subject, not about the subject - yes, I checked them all
43: subject's magazine, not independent coverage
44: "photos courtesy of Rachel Galvin", not independent
45: 404
46: subject also works here apparently, so that's not independent
47: not independent
48: 404
49: This one is independent of the subject
50: interview, not independent of subject
51: 404
52: 404
53: subject not mentioned
54: subject not mentioned
55: 404
56: subject illustrated a book that is on Amazon.
My
WP:BEFORE did not find anything beyond these links, so that's a
WP:GNG failure. I could not find any reviews of her book "Basics of the Biz:: A Holistic Approach to becoming an Actor" so that's a
WP:NAUTHOR failure.
RetiredDuke (
talk) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: on a close inspection I agree with nom's assessment of the sources. Good example of
WP:CITEKILL. SITH(talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Tried to go through all the sources but so many are either missing from citation provide or self-sourced that I got exhausted.
valereee (
talk) 02:23, 31 December 2018 (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.
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. --
Scott (
talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:NACTOR since she has not had significant roles in multiple productions. Subject does not meet
WP:NAUTHOR since her only published work was not widely discussed by independent, reliable sources. Subject fails
WP:GNG because she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. This article attempts to establish notability through
WP:REFBOMBING and reads like a CV. -- PS. I found another Rachel Galvin when performing
WP:BEFORE, that other one is a poet.
RetiredDuke (
talk) 21:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Now with the analysis of sources (only 56 of them)
1: subject not mentioned
2: press release, by the subject, of a non-notable musical
3: IMDb reference, showing that the subject was uncredited as a minor character in an episode of a TV series
4: subject's IMDb page (not a reliable source). Lots of uncredited parts, minor parts and shorts. No significant roles on sight.
5: Youtube. A 6-minute production, not independent
6: website by the subject, not independent coverage
7: Youtube, not independent
8: Kickstarter? Not RS
9: IMDb, again, not reliable
10: Talent management website, can't spot mention of subject anywhere
11: subject's personal blog
12: 404
13: the subject's magazine again, not independent coverage
14: apparently the subject is editor here, not independent
15: 404, award does not seem notable since I can't find much about it
16: leads to the front page of a local newspaper, subject not mentioned
17 to 42: works by the subject, not about the subject - yes, I checked them all
43: subject's magazine, not independent coverage
44: "photos courtesy of Rachel Galvin", not independent
45: 404
46: subject also works here apparently, so that's not independent
47: not independent
48: 404
49: This one is independent of the subject
50: interview, not independent of subject
51: 404
52: 404
53: subject not mentioned
54: subject not mentioned
55: 404
56: subject illustrated a book that is on Amazon.
My
WP:BEFORE did not find anything beyond these links, so that's a
WP:GNG failure. I could not find any reviews of her book "Basics of the Biz:: A Holistic Approach to becoming an Actor" so that's a
WP:NAUTHOR failure.
RetiredDuke (
talk) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: on a close inspection I agree with nom's assessment of the sources. Good example of
WP:CITEKILL. SITH(talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Tried to go through all the sources but so many are either missing from citation provide or self-sourced that I got exhausted.
valereee (
talk) 02:23, 31 December 2018 (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.