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. ignored spa/sock contributions.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Age is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.78 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane Bellamar[edit]

Ariane Bellamar (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)

Article created by COI editor. DePRODded by another possible COI editor. PROD reason still stands: " No evidence of any notability. Scant coverage and what there is comes from tabloids (see WP:BLPSOURCES). Does not meet WP:BIO." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I recently added articles published by the LA Times, Forbes, NY Post, IMDB, USA Today, Daily Mail, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, San Diego Tribune, KSWB-TV, and I have even more if necessary. Could you please let me know why this article is being reviewed for deletion due to a 'lack of credible sources'? Thank you. Tan (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the references meet the WP:RS threshold and WP:GNG. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 12:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have removed all of the IMDb refs. What's left are a slew of references to a single domestic battery circumstance, and little else. This is looking like it might be a WP:BIO1E situation. In terms of a "body" of work, I don't think she passes WP:NACTOR, as her roles all seem to be "bit parts". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this actually suggests solid independent notability for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing to suggest rising to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current in all media forms, starring in the blockbuster suicide squad. obviously notable.23.243.49.242 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Referring to someone's assault as a 'battery' (a legal term with a different meaning) with a 'slew' (defined as a violent or uncontrollable sliding movement) of references (referring to publications by LA Times, Forbes, NY Post, IMDB, USA Today, Daily Mail, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, San Diego Tribune, KSWB-TV) is highly insensitive and quite frankly a poor use of vocabulary considering the disparity between the definitions intended and their true meanings.. As for the "little else" comment, this actor is in the most highly anticipated movie of 2016, Suicide Squad, let alone starring in 9 of 10 episode of the ABC Family's Beverly Hills Nannies (as mentioned on IMDB that you so frivolously deleted). I would hardly call those accomplishments, 'little else' unless it is used to describe the writer's knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore, IMDB is not another poster board for people to be able to upload any content they would like, for currently the wait time on an uploaded approval is over 3 years. The comments coming in are hardly those of people who have taken the time to look at the actual body of work listed here but prefer to place put downs insisting that they know the world's largest industry, Entertainment. Referring to the body of work as 'bit parts' when lead roles have been cast in major network television series or suggesting that there is 'no rising to the level of being notable' when a role in the most publicized movie of this year, yet it is still 6 months away which is unheard of this industry, and has articles written in some of the country's largest and most respected publications. These issues I have described clearly shows the lack of integrity and knowledge of the above writers. Therefore, their comments should be disregarded on the basis that they are ignorant of the facts and can easily be disproven by a quick glance over the sources of information in the references. I work in this industry and I can vouch for the talent and work it takes to have a recognizable name. Those who think the line of work in entertainment is easy have obviously never worked hard in their life. That's my 2 cents.Tan (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I've struck through your duplicate vote. If you'd like to make a comment, you can prefix it with '''Comment''', but you should not vote more than once. Second, your comments are bordering on personal attacks. Please do not call people ignorant or insinuate that they are lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignorance is a state of mind, if people choose not to inform themselves and continue to make recommendations then their actions come from ignorance, this is a definition not an insult. Furthermore, laziness generally contributes to ignorance when mixed with self-righteous attitudes but nonetheless it is condition that someone chooses for themselves. If the individuals above took the time to read the article, as I assume NinjaRobotPirate seems to have done, then they would be discussing the same eligibility require that NRB has stated, instead of making quickly dismissible and misleading comments.Tan (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, where to start?... The main point is this: she doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. And her role in Suicide Squad (film) is correctly described as a "bit part" – it's not even a "named" role, and the Wikipedia article I just linked to makes no mention of her. You're then down to just Beverly Hills Nanny, and one "major" role on its own does not clear WP:NACTOR. There is zero justification for Wikipedia to have an article on this person – she simply does meet Wikipedia's notability standards. (P.S. I have no idea what you mean about IMDb having "3 year" waitimes – I'm a contributor over there, and I just added a new title myself within the past month, and it only took a week.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the IMDB Processing Data Page, I will attest that you were correct and I misread the information. Having said that, I respectfully disagree with your statement that "there is zero justification for Wikipedia to have an article". According to the WP:NACTOR "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As I previously stated there are articles from LA Times, Forbes, NY Post, IMDB, USA Today, Daily Mail, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, San Diego Tribune, KSWB-TV, these are verified and reliable publications which meet the requirements in WP:NACTOR. Additionally, the actor has nearly 900,000 fans throughout social media which most certainly accounts for the requirement of having a 'fan base'. Not withholding that the actor is already mentioned in Wiki's article Beverly Hills Nannies. Tan (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my other comments on this page, and as per others such as SwisterTwister. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep consistently on television and in the news is by definition "notable". news agencies, tabloids or otherwise, do not take interest in the "not notable".Clintonwallace0813 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMDB does not bill "bit parts" unless specified by the addition of "uncredited". She would have to have a substantial role with a main character to receive the type of credit listed for her on imdb. Between that, a series role on a major television network and the news articles, it's quite obvious (in my opinion) that she is notable and the article should remain in place. Mushu2 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verified blue checkmark on her social media accounts with nearly one million followers.Wikipuffer48 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note:. Mushu2, Wikipuffer88, and Clintonwallace0813 are  Confirmed socks of Tannerslaught (signed here as Tan). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tannerslaught.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bit parts and some tabloid-style drama do not make someone notable. Social media followers can be purchased in bulk. The sock puppetry by an editor with an apparent COI pushes me even further toward delete. It's still too soon for an article on this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few small roles does not make for WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 16 February 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.