Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Parr (actress)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Parr (actress)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actress with parts in many films and TV shows, per Imdb, with none of those significant roles in notable productions. My searches found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm mindboggled at this deletion nomination. The contention in this deletion nomination that Katherine Parr does not meet WP:NACTOR is absurd, as that standard is "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", which she clearly meets. This is not some small-time actress. She has had a hundred or so roles, not in small plays with a local audience, but in nationally and internationally-aired films and television shows, ranging from notable (e.g. The Doctors, The Woman in White) to extremely notable (e.g. EastEnders, Coronation Street, shows that have aired internationally for decades). This isn't even an edge case; she is a clear, strong keep. Her career spanned over three decades. There are many actors on Wikipedia who have articles despite only a few roles; compared to them, she is a giant in the field. She may not be "famous" today, but, per WP:N, notability, once established, is not temporary, and she should not be punished for her career having been in a pre-Internet era. —Lowellian (reply) 12:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a running joke that every British actor has been in Doctors and God knows how many small parts have been given to people in EastEnders and Corrie. Lots of tiny parts doesn't make you notable, and any notability needs to be verified. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that they are notable series, and Katherine Parr, with her hundred or so roles in internationally-aired productions in a career spanning decades, doesn't just meet the WP:NACTOR standard of "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"; she flies above it. —Lowellian (reply) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that she has had any significant roles in notable productions, and significant roles is the key term. Boleyn (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Mrs. Catherick, Katherine Parr was one of the primary antagonists in The Woman in White. In The Doctors, Coronation Street, and EastEnders, her roles were not just named, but recurring. Recurring named roles are significant. —Lowellian (reply) 08:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These longstanding character actors establish notability when one considers the sheer volume of their work. She also appeared in multiple series for multiple episodes, even if they weren't in the age of Google. This one reminds me of Hilda Plowright, where we did some more WP:HEY and expanded it a bit. Any of these women from this era are quite remarkable if they managed to create and sustain an acting career for so many years, particularly the years after they were more mature women in a world that glorifies youth. I find that a lot of these people who fall into a zone before the internet got big, but after the copyright laws tightened what coverage is freely available in online scans are often difficult to get a lot of info about, but I think there is enough here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 25 January 2017 (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.