Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Ashworth

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. Eluchil404 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ashworth

An actress. Er, that's it. Created by an account whose edits are to this and to Richard Peter Ashworth - almost certainly the account is one or the other individual. Well down the billing in the few things she's been in, with the exception of one indie film which has not plot summary on IMDB. I would say that this person fails the WP:BIO notability guideline, and the article fails to credibly assert notability, also fails to cite any non-trivial independent coverage or any independent reliable source. Cruftbane 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - according to yahoo movie, she is one of the stars in a movie "Becoming Jane" from Mirimax films linked below. Starring in a movie from a big production company should be worth at least something, no? I do however fell that the article needs to be expanded, as it stands, it is too short. [1]Iamchrisryan 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though she was billed 11th in "Becoming Jane", she contributed to the soundtrack. She was also billed second in a 2005 film called "Monsters", a possibly notable film.--Sethacus 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment/correction Excuse me, it was 2004 and it does appear notable.--Sethacus 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Second billing in an underground indie film by a director on whom we don't have an article. Not that notable, perhaps :o) Cruftbane 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on a lot of notable people/things. Wikipedia isn't God. By your logic, if we dohave an article on a film, it's notable, n'est pas? :)By the way, if we did have an article on Robert Morgan, it would pass notability as he has been profiled by the BBC as well as he has won a number of awards, including for the film you so callously dismiss as an "underground indie film". Also, I'd like to remind those deleting solely on the basis of possible COI, that's not a very good excuse.--Sethacus 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Bacchiad 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not quite notable enough for someone other than her or her immediate family to create the article... Cruftbane 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is one we should have an article on but there's a problem with the text as it's currently written, rewrite the text. As long as there's something worth salvaging deletion is counterproductive. Bryan Derksen 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect much as nom. If subject was notable, would article have been created by (by the looks of it) a member of her own family? Looks like a nn 'actress' to me. Marcus22 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actress with minor roles (and one song). WP:COI doesn't even enter into it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also think she seems notable enough. Bryan Derksen 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sethicus. notable (small 'n') Tiptopper 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable -- third billing in her most recent film -- but needs better sourcing. I found 1,000's of Ghits, but she does not interest me enough to bother going through them all to find the reviews and interviews. Possible agent bio; actors are not that smart. ;-) Bearian 20:57, 4 October 2007 (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.