Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay Purcell

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. The one "keep" opinion isn't exactly compelling. Sandstein 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Purcell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After I tidied the article up I planned on sourcing it but bar little mentions I can't find anything at all, (The article looked like this before I tidied it up), Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG, I would say she's mostly remembered for Emmerdale and Waterloo Road so could be redirected to either one of those if preferred. –Davey2010^Talk 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Emmerdale, Waterloo Road and Bernard's Watch are all good targets but I think it's best to delete for now (especially if BLP issues occur later). IMDb and my searches (the best here) show nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I added a few references, but they're only mentions, although she got a few one-line positive reviews. Needed are multiple in-depth accounts to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do hate seeing an article that has a bit of stuff on it getting deleted, can we over-time work to improve this if it's kept? CDRL102 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CDRL102 - I would d honestly rather see it kept but so far there's only mentions and to be fair she's been in alot of tv shows so at this point she should have alot more than just mentions, Had this been a new actor I wouldn't of even nominated it but at the end of the day if there's no notability now then there won't ever be IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just think, if you go through many pages of past actors/actresses of soaps/drama series like WLR, Tracy Beaker, Emmerdale etc, you would find quite the same pages. For example, Holly Kenny from WLR, or Nicola Reynolds from Tracy Beaker etc and the list could go on really. I don't think - if there's backlog - deleting pages like this that have something to it is right, focusing on pages that are blatantly pointless would be more resourceful. CDRL102 (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some coverage, but mostly in local regional sources (which in and of itself is not a bad thing), but none are substantial. And that's the sticking point. Davey2010's comment to CDRL102 sums it up pretty well, I agree that it's not a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 12 August 2015 (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.