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. JForget 23:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessa French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Television actress who has had small roles in various series. But there are no reliable, third-party sources available to build a decent article for now. The article can be recreated once that has changed. See the guideline WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Nothing but a series of brief appearences in TV shows, never more than 1 appearence in any series. A small role in a yet to be released film. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IMDB lists 14 roles, links to several third-party articles. Also appears to have had had a number of commercial roles. It's the articles in not completely advertorial trade press that does it for me. Zachlipton (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did a lot of insignificant roles Start to become equal to one or two significant ones? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not insignificant roles and some character actors became famous before getting lead roles. But this is not the case thus far for Mrs French. Pichpich (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not insignificant? 12 of the 14 listed are single episode appearences, playing "ex-girlfriend" and a series of one name characters. Those are not significant. 1 movie role in a small indie that nobody saw. That is not significant. Which roles did you consider to be significant? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these 14 roles cover a span of 7 years and consist of 12 minor non-recurring roles in television series, one minor role in a 24-minute short film and one secondary role in a self-produced feature film that, as far as I can tell, was never released in theatres. I don't see the links to third-party articles that you mention but I'd be happy to reconsider if they are indeed significant. Google News comes up empty by the way. Note also that the creator's user name matches that of Jessa French's website designer. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's also had press in ReelStyle and Indie Scene Magazine and several theater roles including No Escape at the Coronet, directed by William Shatner (not that notability by association is appropriate here or anywhere). Zachlipton (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The press is from 4 years ago and as far as I can tell these two magazines either don't exist, don't exist anymore or exist but have no web presence whatsoever which you'll agree is odd for an indie scene magazine. In any case, that hardly qualifies as significant reliable coverage. There's also no indication of the importance of the roles she played in theatrical productions. (In Tartfuffe she played a secondary role) Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out though that she apparently did play a lead role in Nature of the Long-Haired Guinea Pig at the Beverly Hills Playhouse as the play in question has only one female role and stars a young couple if this article is to be trusted. There are copies of the press articles in question on her website: [1] [2]. They look like full-page features on her, although I have no way of knowing whether they are truly third-party or mere advertorials. Take it or leave it. Zachlipton (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed they were available on her website. But you'll agree that even if they are truly third-party, both are pretty useless for building an article and can't reasonably be viewed as significant coverage. Delete 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject's notability has not yet been clearly established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From WP:ENT "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Clearly does not meet criteria. LK (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My view is that if subject had established a sustained body of work based on a clearly-defined aesthetic protocol, then an argument could be made for inclusion. But much of what I'm seeing in subject's stage work - IMDB list and IMDB resume - seems to fall under the category of community theatre and/or industry showcases, which have zero cultural importance and cannot be considered "professional." -- Rudybowwow (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2009 (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.