Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portia Reiners

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Reiners (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)

This article was deprodded without explanation, just a blanket statement that it should be sent to AfD without any reason given as to why. To begin with, I am unconvinced that she has had multiple significant roles in notable productions. Even her in a soap opera 47 episode role is not to me clear that it is significant. Repeating roles in soap operas have to be weighed both on the scale of the episodes they encompass and also against the totality to the production. It is only the totality of the production, not individual episodes that is notable. Beyond this we have a total failure of the general notability guidelines. My search for sources produced nothing more substantial, and her twitter account is not at all a useable source at least to add towards notability. IMDb is not only an unreliable source, often including inaccurate information and on occasion down right hoaxes, but it aims to cover every person who has ever appeared in film, and close to the same level for appearances in programic television, I think it does not extend to news broadcasts and reality shows, but if it is a pre-scripted TV show, I think IMDb generally aims to include the whole cast, even people who were never credited. This is absurdly more broad than our inclusions criteria, yet we at present have dozens if not hundreds of articles that have IMDb as the only source. The fact that prod deletes for such articles routine get rejected shows to what extent Wikipedia is still under the control of the radical inclusionists who ruined Wikipedia credibility with their reckless creationism from 2006-2012. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The IMDb episode counts can be very incomplete also. This is especially true for older, more obscure shows and soap operas, which produces so many episodes. Some actors have been in many more episodes than IMDb has listed for them (especially true for soap opera actors, especially ones with long term roles). I forget which year IMDb added the feature to easily add individual episodes and the actors in the particular episodes, but it's very incomplete for some shows prior to that. Ones after that tend to be more (or closer to being) accurate. I'm not familiar with Reiners', so this might not apply to her. Just something to be taken into consideration. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That nomination took quite a turn there at the end. Anyway, she easily passes WP:NACTOR#1. Twelve Thirty, for example, was widely reviewed, e.g. by Stephen Holden in The New York Times, by Andrew Schenker in The Village Voice, and Bill Goodykoontz in The Arizona Republic, among others, including commentary on her specific performance in the film. She's also had a stage career that isn't mentioned at all in the article, such as her lead role in the 2002 play The Notebook, which was reviewed by Anita Gates for The New York Times, as well as in NYDN and Newsday. She's obviously "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", which is what the actual notability guidelines require. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the last post she has multiple significant roles in notable productions in television, film and Broadway theatre productions so deserves to be kept in the encyclopedia, reliable sources have been identified above that confirm that she passes WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but should retain the Additional Citations tag. Meets notability requirements but some work should be done to improve references. --PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:45, 22 April 2019 (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.