Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Zinser

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. It's a Weak Keep but Keep it is. Article in need of improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Zinser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Un notable actress. Not many third party sources in article and none found online. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Washington, D.C.. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete: Source #1 just has random quotes from the subject; barely says anything about her. Source #2 does verify the statement that it's supporting, but doesn't show WP:SIGCOV and doesn't justify the article. I also couldn't find any other sources. Only 7/12 films she's acted in (though they might be notable) have articles, and in only two of those does she star. She's also only had one recurring/main performance in a show. I suppose, if one looks at the bare minimum, she just barely passes WP:NACTOR (which is why this is just a soft delete). However, when looking at the GNG, it doesn't exactly work, based on the definitions provided. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: The subject appeared in 60 episodes of 90210 (this source evidences her role in the show), and had either main or supporting roles in The Truth Below, Liars All, The Guilty and Smile, for which she at least gets passing mentions in sources like The Hollywood Reporter and The Los Angeles Times (here). So while the material to make out WP:GNG is a bit slim, she has had significant enough roles in notable productions to meet WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a lot of these movies are not notable as they have not won any awards and widely covered. Smile is not a main role. Plus, she doesn't have a lot of third party coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. She gets a mention in The New York Times review of Smile, so clearly part of the main cast; even if not one of largest parts. She was part of the main cast of 90210 for two seasons (verified in this book). It's enough to squeak by NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep very mild keep, just barely notable with the sources shown above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per 4meter4. Moresdi (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2022 (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.