357:
mention her TV roles seem only to recount those roles -- there isn't any suggestion that the subject has contributed "significance." The articles in her hometown newspaper are rather chatty, anecdotes that again, don't speak to significance. Taken as a whole, the sources suggest that her career has been more aspirational than actual. Frankly, that the article now includes the subject as having received "Woman of the Week" from a
Sportsbra manufacturer is somewhat disingenuous.
755:, as meeting the GNG while even if just grazing ENT would be still be enough, as meeting the GNG for coverage over 18 years is meeting the GNG. Notability may be found in the considering the overall and cumulative parts that make up an individual's career, without ignoring some and spending paragraphs quibbling over others.
650:
runs against existing consensus, as it does not matter per that guideline if she had 2 significant appearances in a notable series or 200, as long as the appearances in notable productions were significant enough for them to be written about in multiple reliable sources (and no, such write-ups do not
711:
We happen to be building "the consensus" on this article, right here, on whether this subject meets notability requirements. Appearances on television do not equate to notability. The sources that note the subjects appearances hardly detail her roles – as is required. Most of the sources for her
645:
Use of hyperlinks in discussion is per such converntions. It is not circular reasoning to point out that the television series have already met notability standards elsewhere within
Knowledge (XXG). I do not have to rebuild and source those articles for you here in order to show you the notability
356:
With no disrespect to the subject of the article, are we equating mere mention in a reliable source with significance? Or aren't we looking for good sources that actually support that the subject of the article contributed significance? The articles (two which appear in prominent newspapers) that
626:
film. And you may be reading between the lines (and enjoying the use of hyperlinks that don't actually support the text you pipe from here) as well as using circular arguments: the subject is significant because the subject is significant. Nothing in the guidelines says that if a person has X
621:
Note that along with much of the information in the article, the number of episode appearances isn't sourced, nor is the ultra-short film "Nice Pants". How could information like that even get into an article unless its put there by someone promoting the subject of the article? A quick google
259:
651:
have to be the main foucus of the articles). And her record of being in those films and television shows may be directly verified in the onscreen credits of the film or television show itself, without me having to offer links to copies of such... but here, go watch the
627:
number of appearances on television they become notable. What the article needs is a reliable source that explicitly gives support to the significance of the subject. I have yet to see that... unless we're talking about the
738:
that she was in it, and such was offered. I never stated that it was some major studio blockbuster. ENT does not mandate that all her productions be notable or appearances significant... only that some be so... and ENT is
803:
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of someone who arrives on
Knowledge (XXG) and 127 edits later is rendering a strong opinion in what would have to be a fairly obscure type of discussion on a fairly obscure topic. Wow.
166:
73:
716:
she appeared, without any detail of her role, her acting, her awards, etc. The "Nice Pants" appears to have been more of a video than a film... having received about 1500 hits per year in ten years.
234:
829:
and the discussion is listed in a location where it could have caught even a newcomer's eye. In an encyclopedia anyone can edit, even a 4-week newcomer is allowed to voice an opinion at AFD.
538:
Coverage or "appearance" does not equal notability; it's a logical mistake to conflate the two. In the meantime, there is no reliable source coverage apparently that suggests anything
127:
160:
68:
331:
258:: There is some sourcing out there, such as surely intriguing 1992 article, "WEIGHTS BRING DAD AND DAUGHTER CLOSER TOGETHERNESS COMES FROM BENCH PRESSING"
542:
what the subject of the article has done in her appearances. The coverage notes her appearances while failing to suggest those appearances mattered.
418:
So 36 appearances on televsion equals notibility? No... significance equals notiblity. Nothing in thos appearances actually suggest significance.
694:
beginning in 1992 as a youth record holder and leading up to now for her other activities. Her also meeting ENT is simply icng on the cake.
202:
827:
329:
100:
95:
747:
that might be considered. We use various applicable guidelines in determing an individual's notability, and consensus is not just a
17:
104:
883:
866:
841:
813:
798:
767:
725:
706:
640:
616:
551:
533:
512:
472:
427:
413:
366:
345:
288:
270:
249:
224:
206:
52:
853:- looks like all key items mentioned in article is sourced, and as MichaelQSchmidt points out, she does meet the standard set by
87:
333:
Both surprising and quite rare for a child weight-lift champion turned personal trainer turned actress. Not a one-trick pony.
181:
148:
898:
36:
794:
300:'s "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (IE:
838:
764:
703:
613:
530:
469:
410:
342:
142:
897:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
138:
790:
215:
The article has been signifcantly updated, more carefully written, and certainly more adequately sourced.
748:
188:
831:
757:
696:
606:
523:
462:
403:
335:
501:
174:
91:
879:
862:
664:
823:
457:
401:(2006-2008), as well as the few films seems "actual" to me, even if not Academy Award material.
380:
508:
245:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
601:
376:
751:
of heads. We can also discuss whether the individual's coverage since 1992 shows her being
391:
302:
154:
854:
819:
691:
647:
593:
589:
585:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
453:
449:
433:
325:
297:
456:. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met. And that life goes on and she moves on to others things
308:
49:
675:
581:
577:
445:
441:
809:
721:
636:
547:
423:
385:
362:
220:
83:
58:
752:
735:
679:
597:
517:
Does not matter that she lost, as its the coverage that matters. And 23 episodes of a
437:
296:
Is no longer unsourced, and more being added. The individual meets notability through
875:
858:
389:
articles, we do not have just "mere" mentions. And "aspirational"?? 13 episodes of
281:
263:
504:
241:
197:
Unsourced BLP, dubious notability. Another editor tried to AFD but didn't finish.
121:
500:
network. That does not add up to several major supporting roles as an actress.
660:
314:
678:
dedicated to accurate reporting of information on actors and film, does indeed
670:
372:
805:
717:
632:
543:
419:
358:
216:
397:
320:
261:(behind paywall), but overall I'd say she probably is not notable.--
874:
I think there is sufficient coverage here to establish notability.
683:
656:
518:
891:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
743:
the sole criteria that may be used in our consideration... only
687:
646:
found by others elsewhere. And please, your interpretation of
440:. Recurring as a significant character in 13 episodes of one
235:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
117:
113:
109:
173:
74:
Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cardon (2nd nomination)
826:. The new editor has been on board since December 8,
187:
576:as a significant character in 13 episodes of one
379:. But even with the earliest articles about her
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
901:). No further edits should be made to this page.
568:. Extensive coverage as a youth record holder
690:series. She meets notability criteria through
580:and as supporting character in 23 episodes of
521:show is something more than an "appearance".
375:company's woman of the week is trivial. Feel
8:
328:beginning back in 1992 and extending to now.
574:being covered in multiple reliable sources
444:and suporting character in 23 episodes of
229:
631:"award: from a sports pro manufacturer.
622:search turns up zero information on the
233:: This debate has been included in the
602:notability requires verifiable evidence
66:
458:does not negate her earlier notability
383:as a teen weight lift champion in the
558:coverage in multiple reliable sources
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
69:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cardon
604:, agree with that evidence or not.
592:. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met.
371:The one sentence about her being a
279:based on improvement noted below.--
65:
24:
789:i think there are enough sources
560:from 1992 until the present, per
682:her televion appearances in the
395:(2004-2005), and 23 episodes of
432:Sorry to disagree, but meeting
596:is met. But most importantly,
1:
884:19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
867:13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
842:21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
814:13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
799:06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
768:00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
726:14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
707:08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
641:03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
492:- I don't get it. She lost
225:21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
53:22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
617:04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
590:coverage for her apearances
552:23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
534:20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
513:16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
473:04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
454:coverage for her apearances
428:23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
414:20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
367:16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
346:07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
289:13:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
271:05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
250:19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
207:18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
918:
662:However, since you asked,
496:and appeased on a show on
213:Keep (updated from delete)
712:appearances simply state
894:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
588:, specially as she has
572:. Recurring and being
452:, specially as she has
324:), and through having
64:AfDs for this article:
570:equates to notability
692:significant coverage
586:equate to notability
566:equate to notability
450:equate to notability
326:significant coverage
665:The New York Times
556:Sorry, but having
205:and a clue-bat •
44:The result was
791:MrsSunDoesntShine
629:Woman of the Week
502:Where's the beef?
377:free to remove it
287:
269:
252:
238:
909:
896:
834:
818:Please remember
760:
699:
609:
526:
465:
406:
392:The Amazing Race
338:
303:The Amazing Race
286:
268:
239:
200:
199:Ten Pound Hammer
192:
191:
177:
125:
107:
34:
917:
916:
912:
911:
910:
908:
907:
906:
905:
899:deletion review
892:
832:
758:
734:... you wanted
697:
676:reliable source
607:
524:
463:
404:
336:
309:Soup of the Day
198:
134:
98:
82:
79:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
915:
913:
904:
903:
887:
886:
869:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
753:worthy of note
578:notable series
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
442:notable series
386:Virginia Pilot
349:
348:
291:
273:
253:
227:
195:
194:
131:
84:Rebecca Cardon
78:
77:
76:
71:
63:
61:
59:Rebecca Cardon
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
914:
902:
900:
895:
889:
888:
885:
881:
877:
873:
870:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
849:
843:
840:
839:
836:
835:
828:
825:
821:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
788:
785:
769:
766:
765:
762:
761:
754:
750:
746:
742:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
715:
710:
709:
708:
705:
704:
701:
700:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
667:
666:
661:
658:
654:
649:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
630:
625:
620:
619:
618:
615:
614:
611:
610:
603:
600:is met....as
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
532:
531:
528:
527:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
474:
471:
470:
467:
466:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
412:
411:
408:
407:
400:
399:
394:
393:
388:
387:
382:
381:early success
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
364:
360:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
344:
343:
340:
339:
332:
330:
327:
323:
322:
317:
316:
311:
310:
305:
304:
299:
295:
292:
290:
284:
283:
278:
274:
272:
266:
265:
260:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
236:
232:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
70:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
893:
890:
871:
850:
837:
830:
786:
763:
756:
744:
740:
736:verification
731:
713:
702:
695:
669:
663:
652:
628:
623:
612:
605:
584:does indeed
564:does indeed
539:
529:
522:
497:
494:Amazing Race
493:
489:
468:
461:
448:does indeed
409:
402:
396:
390:
384:
341:
334:
319:
313:
307:
301:
293:
280:
276:
262:
255:
230:
212:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
45:
43:
31:
28:
668:subsidiary
624:ultra-short
315:The Scorned
161:free images
732:Nice Pants
671:InBaseline
653:Nice Pants
438:notability
373:sports bra
275:Moving to
203:his otters
50:Courcelles
562:guideline
242:• Gene93k
876:Davewild
859:Tabercil
833:Schmidt,
824:WP:ADHOM
759:Schmidt,
698:Schmidt,
608:Schmidt,
525:Schmidt,
464:Schmidt,
405:Schmidt,
398:Work Out
337:Schmidt,
321:Work Out
282:Milowent
264:Milowent
128:View log
582:another
505:Bearian
446:another
256:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
101:protect
96:history
855:WP:ENT
820:WP:AGF
648:WP:ENT
598:policy
594:WP:BLP
490:Delete
434:WP:GNG
298:WP:ENT
139:Google
105:delete
749:count
730:Inre
684:Bravo
680:verfy
657:Spike
540:about
519:Bravo
498:Bravo
182:JSTOR
143:books
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
880:talk
872:Keep
863:talk
851:Keep
822:and
810:talk
806:842U
795:talk
787:keep
722:talk
718:842U
714:that
686:and
674:, a
637:talk
633:842U
548:talk
544:842U
509:talk
424:talk
420:842U
363:talk
359:842U
294:Keep
277:Keep
246:talk
231:Note
221:talk
217:842U
175:FENS
149:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
46:keep
745:one
741:not
688:CBS
655:at
240:--
189:TWL
126:– (
882:)
865:)
857:.
812:)
797:)
724:)
639:)
550:)
511:)
460:.
436:=
426:)
365:)
318:,
312:,
306:,
285:•
267:•
248:)
237:.
223:)
201:,
169:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
48:.
878:(
861:(
808:(
793:(
720:(
659:.
635:(
546:(
507:(
422:(
361:(
244:(
219:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.