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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kearney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustain article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ENT. The new article is substantially the same as the one which the last three AfD's determined did not show sufficient notability to have a stand alone article. The sources are cast announcements/bare mentions and two links to her management agency. Since this article is regularly recreated the title should either be WP:SALTED or, if redirected, full protected until there is actually coverage that passed GNG/ENT. Jbh^Talk 00:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - per arguments of the nominator. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, which was only 6 months ago. Since the article has been recreated despite the outcome of previous AfDs, I agree with the suggestion to salt it. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources have been significantly improved since the last AFD. Refence 1 is a new one and is an article directly about the actress, from the Irish Independent, over 200 words. Reference 9 is a new reference, another article from the Irish Independent, directly about her and although there is an interview in the second half, there are about 400 words of straight prose about her. Reference 12 from The Irish Times is a smaller mention, but altogether I think there is enough RS for WP:Verifiability.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how good, or how many sources there are, the subject still needs to meet WP:NACTOR, and she doesn't seem to do this. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC and the following paragraph Additional Criteria make clear that WP:NACTOR is a guideline to help determine if RS are likely to be found, and not meeting any of its criteria is not a barrier to inclusion if RS can be found to pass WP:Verifiability ( I've had this explained to me by admin).Atlantic306 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, RS can be used, and should over Nactor, but, these sources have to be in depth. The Irish Indo ones, just about do this, but the others dont discuss the subject in detail. Considering the size of the article and these two sources, the rest mainly listings and mentions dont give a full case for notability yet. Murry1975 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would argue that the actress is just about notable enough to meet Nactor. She has been in three cult television shows, most notably Primeval where she was a leading cast member. The other two are within the past couple of years, and are only recurring roles, but one lasted 11 episodes, so the actress was a pretty major part of that season. All the other credits prior to this are completely throwaway, and are just guest appearances. She is also set to appear as the female lead in Flaked in a couple of weeks time. This seems to be a pretty major role to me, and I'm sure will get a lot of publicity as all Netflix shows seem to do. It is a shame that the writer who recreated this article didn't wait a couple of weeks, because there might be some interviews around which would be better sources, although we can't predict the future. Still she is the female lead in the role, and that will bring additional interest to her. Overall, I think the sources are fine. There's a couple of in-depth interviews, and then the rest are mainly just mentions, but apart from one or two they're a lot better than when the previous deletion discussions took place. Finally, since the article was recreated it has averaged over 1000 views per day. This seems to indicate there is significant interest in the actress. I also don't think it would be wise to salt, because it can only be a matter of time before there are enough sources for an article (if there aren't now), perhaps even a few weeks. There's obviously interest in the actress, so we shouldn't make it difficult to recreate the article, ans she's hardly a controversial figure. Having said that I would still be for keeping the article now.IdenticalHetero (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still averaging over 1000 view per day, I would be much more of a strong keep now. There's plenty of interest in the actress IdenticalHetero (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page views can be used to determine the primary topic, but aren't relevant to determining notability or whether a page should be kept. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant role in Primeval and a lead in Flaked satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources have been significantly improved since the article was initially recreated. Even today I added an interview from a magazine. There's more interviews, and some good websites, such as Deadline and Variety. Most importantly it satisfies WP:NACTOR Somethingwickedly (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Important role plus newspaper coverage focused on her meets GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recent, ongoing, international newspaper coverage meets GNG. 3rd AfD close was improper as NAC closing against numerical consensus to keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant roles in three or four television shows is good enough notability wise (GNG/ENT), with other minor roles as well. Been significantly improved since it was recreated. Sources are good enough with a few good interviews and good websites/newspapers. Cindlevet (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2016 (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.