Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trisha Paytas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trisha Paytas (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 fails WP:NACTOR, plays minor roles in multiple films but no "significant" role as required by notability requirements. Only WP:RS coverage I can find involves her endorsement of Romney, but nothing that would indicate significant coverage over time. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Strangely enough, she's gotten repeated significant coverage from the Daily Mail. [1] [2][3], one of which was reprinted in the Haryana Tribune. [4]. She was also on Who Wants to Be a Superhero?, and Eminem's We Made You video, and the Romney endorsement MSNHuffington PostDifferent Huffington Post which probably wouldn't have been enough by themselves, but does serve to put her over the notability bar. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find those, but I still think it fails in significant coverage. There is one article there that does provide some coverage of her as a youtube actress, but that seems sparked by her Romney statements and then...well nothing happened. the other are followups on her tanning addiction. This coverage is enough to establish her as an entertainer, but not enough to forgo the notability criteria for entertainers, and she fails WP:NACTOR.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is how one becomes notable for more than one event: one event at a time. :-) She is not a notable actor, she is notable per the classic WP:GNG, with multiple articles dedicated to her from multiple mainstream sources. Not by a wide margin, I'll grant, but I think she does meet it. --GRuban (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agreee with GRuban, Coffeepusher. When someone meets the GNG, we do not need to then find an SNG they might fail. It is only if one fails the primary notability guidline that we look to see if an SNG might be met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find those, but I still think it fails in significant coverage. There is one article there that does provide some coverage of her as a youtube actress, but that seems sparked by her Romney statements and then...well nothing happened. the other are followups on her tanning addiction. This coverage is enough to establish her as an entertainer, but not enough to forgo the notability criteria for entertainers, and she fails WP:NACTOR.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's some evidence that she might be notable.[5][6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:BASIC through meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Transparency: I did meet Ms Paytas back in 2011 when on set for my brief scene in the Sleepless in Silverlake video covering a day-in-the-life of various Hollywood look-a-likes as shared by Les Savy Fav, Paytas opens the video as a Marilyn Monroe type and, in a short scene in a karaoke bar, I did a pretty spot-on Oliver Hardy dancing with a Joan Crawford look-a-like.[8] I had no idea that she would eventually have the coverage to merit inclusion. Good for her. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know her best for being that tanning addict on My Strange Addiction. That alone should already help meet GNG. And she apparently is another Steve Woodmore! Coffee pusher, please check for some decent sources before nomming. While it may not be a policy per se, it helps to save everybody's time. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bonkers, it is ok to disagree with a nomination, but could you please strike the last part of your comment. I think calling me "sounding stupid" is a personal attack. This page is not here to discuss your opinions of my shortcomings.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I may not have worded it ideally, but I what I truly wanted to convey that it doesn't look good on you or anyone else when you start and AfD and everybody opposes to deleting. Besides, there is really so much significant coverage out there and it seems to me that when you said "Only WP:RS coverage I can find involves her endorsement of Romney [...]", you didn't really spend time to find more. I really didn't mean to call you stupid; who am I to judge your intellect? (IMO, "sounding stupid" isnt really that much a "personal attack" as compared to "you are a retard!".) Sorry, I just wanted to make a point and show my frustration at a growing number of AfD nominations that derive from a lack of guideline encouraged WP:BEFORE but apparently I have selected the wrong wording. So I have gone ahead with your wishes and struck the last line. Thank you for your notification. Best, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I may not have worded it ideally, but I what I truly wanted to convey that it doesn't look good on you or anyone else when you start and AfD and everybody opposes to deleting. Besides, there is really so much significant coverage out there and it seems to me that when you said "Only WP:RS coverage I can find involves her endorsement of Romney [...]", you didn't really spend time to find more. I really didn't mean to call you stupid; who am I to judge your intellect? (IMO, "sounding stupid" isnt really that much a "personal attack" as compared to "you are a retard!".) Sorry, I just wanted to make a point and show my frustration at a growing number of AfD nominations that derive from a lack of guideline encouraged WP:BEFORE but apparently I have selected the wrong wording. So I have gone ahead with your wishes and struck the last line. Thank you for your notification. Best, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bonkers, it is ok to disagree with a nomination, but could you please strike the last part of your comment. I think calling me "sounding stupid" is a personal attack. This page is not here to discuss your opinions of my shortcomings.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2013 (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.