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 no consensus. Discounting the apparent confusion with the baker, there's still a number of valid arguments for and against notability here. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briony Williams[edit]

Briony Williams (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)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her only major role was in the TV series Lockie Leonard. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep she was also in the Great Bake-off and has much press coverage for it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These look to be different people, in different countries and 20+ years different in age. Based on the RS coverage, it does look like the baker is more likely notable than the actress. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:ENT. 52 episodes in a children's show in Australian TV. Chelokabob (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ENT states, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Check her other credits. She had two other shows and 52 episodes is a significant amount. Chelokabob (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One-off characters generally do not count as significant roles, and she doesn't seem to be a Renée Jeanne Falconetti/The Passion of Joan of Arc-like exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her role is Struck by Lightning is decent. A secondary character behind the three leads. See Cinema Papers, May 1991. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More as a stage actress [1]. Has stage roles such as Ilse in Spring Awakening (play), see [2] lots of reviews, and Annabella in 'Tis Pity She's A Whore, see [3] three reviews, Karen? in Speed-the-Plow, see [4] lots of reviews, also co designer of Rites of Memory and Desire: 2, see [5] [6] articles and review. (Note, not the Bake Off Williams, different age, country, hands). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Those aren't "reviews"; those are all just cast listings in something called the "Australian Live Performance Database". Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Clarityfiend, look down to the “Resources” section. There you will see a list of resources about the plays. Eg for ‘’Spring Awakening’’ you will see

Performance Recording: Spring Awakening, State Theatre Company of South Australia, 10 May 1991

Review: Christabel Hirst, Sunday Mail, 21 April 1991

Review: Diane Beer, The News, 17 April 1991

Review: Michael Morley, Financial Review, 26 April 1991

Review: Murray Bramwell, Rites and Wrongs, The Adelaide Review, May 1991, 28-29

Review: Peter Ward, The Australian, 18 April 1991

Review: Tim Lloyd, The Advertiser, 17 April 1991

There you can see six reviews, including from The Australian, a national newspaper. So no, not “just cast listings” as you falsely claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of what, the plays? Not the actress? Next to useless in establishing notability. Also, where is this Resources section? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the play establishment the notability of the play. Since that demonstrates a notable production and she has a significant role that is one more role for NACTOR. So very useful in establishing notability. And where is the resources section? Down near the bottom, right below Contributors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can WP:NOTINHERIT notability from a play. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to break it down for you. There is a SNG for actors at WP:NACTOR. The first criteria on that list is Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The simplified version,

Say an actress has a significant role in a TV series. If that TV series has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a television show. Thats would be one for the above criteria. You acknowledge that above.

Say an actor has a significant role in a film. If that film has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable notable film. Thats would be one for the above criteria.

Say an actress has a significant role in a production of a play. If that production has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable stage performance. Thats would be one for the above criteria.

Say an actress has a significant role in a television show and has four significant roles in a notable stage performances that would count as five for the above criteria. Last I checked five was multiple. It's not about inheriting notability from a play, It's about verifiably satisfying a Subject-specific notability guidelines. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need souring to the level of GNG to justify keeping an article, which we clearly do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was initially going to weak delete based on the television work but there is other material available, in both main stream media and industry media, if you want to find it, which clearly enables a more in-depth article to be written. For example:
  • .. the brilliantly screwball Briony Williams .. in Four Places
  • .. Briony Williams .. a little self-conscious at times, but overall was gutsy, forceful, and seductive .. in Macbeth
  • .. the adaptable Briony Williams .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
  • .. depth of acting talent in the cast .. Briony Williams .. in The Graduate
  • .. Briony Williams proves surprisingly dexterous in an amusing cameo as a stripper .. in The Graduate
  • Briony Williams .. shines in her rather thankless roles .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
  • Briony Williams is pitch-perfect as the solicitous and protective Barb. in Four Places

Combining the subject's television work and stage work I think they get over the GNG line. So there is definitely NEXIST but it really needs to be added to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are all (with the possible exception of the paywalled newspaper article) just passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not passing mentions. They are specific purposeful points about the subject, and are directly relevant to the context they are in. I agree that each by itself is not significant and I am not claiming that any one of them establishes notability. They do, however, demonstrate sustained coverage and in aggregation do contribute to both notability and depth. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 19 February 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.