Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 July 18
2011 July 20 >

19 July 2011

[edit]
  • Ellen Kennedy – Endorsed. The close in this case was based on two major factors: a belief that subject notability guidelines supplement but do not override the general notability guideline, and an interpretation of the keep comments in the AfD as providing evidence that the normal conditions for WP:NACTOR were not applicable to this particular case. The consensus of this DRV is that the former is an accurate understanding of community consensus on SNGs, and the latter is within Ironholds' discretion as closing admin. – RL0919 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ellen Kennedy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Meets secondary guidelines, so the GNG does not matter. Consensus was that the first guideline at WP:ACTOR was met, but the closing administrator said that didn't matter because the GNG weren't. Consensus has long showed that as long as an article meets one of the guidelines it is notable, those guidelines existing since not every notable thing gets coverage. Spoke to closing administrator about this at [1] Dream Focus

The guideline is "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first" (the bolding is mine); leaving a neutrally-phrased query is hardly "I have some concerns and am thinking about opening up a DRV, can you comment/reverse your decision", is it? I did not dispute whether or not the GNG was met - my issue was that WP:ACTOR was not met, and it's rather silly to suggest that "Consensus says X" when what consensus says is precisely what we were there (and here) to discuss. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed it. Your closing statement is clear. Consensus was to keep the article. Three said KEEP because WP:Actor was clearly met. One said delete because he didn't think it was. One said delete because it didn't matter if it met Actor or not, it had to meet GNG, and another said to delete because they didn't think it met WP:Verifiability. Your closing argument stated you thought it didn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability despite the fact that the information is referenced, other than what they have stared in which is in the credits of the shows and films they have worked on. WP:V is clearly met. Dream Focus 12:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. You should also dismiss invalid arguments, such as the claim that meeting Actor doesn't make it notable, and that it absolutely needs coverage. Your closing arguments were quite clear. Hopefully everyone will take the time to read it before commenting here. Dream Focus 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I'm disturbed by the trend that administrators who take the time to write decent closes are effectively being punished for doing so, in that quasi-legalistic arguments about the exact words they chose are being used to take a second bite. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the article you closed that I sent to deletion review where your closing was undone? [2] Dream Focus 16:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Another example of Dream Focus' denial that WP:V actually matters. The closing admin gave a very clear and detailed rationale, and then DF brings it to DRV with "Meets secondary guidelines, so the GNG does not matter." Since when does GNG not matter on any article? Clearly, he either didn't understand the closing rationale or just didn't read it. I think DF has been here long enough to know that secondary guidelines don't override the GNG, and there is nothing that is going to make the GNG "not matter" for a particular article. The secondary guidelines exist to provide us with an easy way to estimate whether an article passes GNG. In other words, if an athlete has accomplished x, y, or z (as covered by multiple reliable sources), then they probably pass the GNG. The secondary guidelines also give us an idea of what qualify as notable events in a particular field, so that even if an athlete has been covered by reliable sources for winning a high school tennis tournament, we can determine that such an achievement is not notable even though it is covered by reliable sources. —SW— express 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the issue at hand, not me. And I have been in enough AFDs to know that the secondary notability guidelines always matter, and always have mattered, for keeping something. Until very recently I never heard anyone say otherwise. Dream Focus 22:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia:Other stuff exists apply to deletion discussions? Dream, I don't think there is any precedence which will be created from this one badly closed Deletion review. Instead, there is a general trend toward a more closed site, with increasingly more good faith contributions being purged. The majority of active editors who are in leadership and who write policy have the same constricted view on wikipedia that Jimbo has. In this very deletion discussion, I see a "whos who" of editors who share this constricted view, and also happen to be admins. That is no accident. In the big picture, this deletion review is not important, it is just one more indication of hundreds showing this negative trend, a trend which you can't change. Okip 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- This appears to be to be a close made according to strength of arguments rather than just strength of numbers, and the closer gave a very sensible and detailed rationale. This DRV nomination leaves a lot to be desired as well. Firstly, it is not true that secondary guidelines trump the GNG- they never have and, hopefully, never will. Secondly, DF did not "discuss" the close with Ironholds at all- just repeating your keep vote on an Admin's talk page isn't really discussion is it? Finally I agree with Aaron Brenneman's observation that closing administrators are increasingly being attacked for leaving good rationales. This needs to stop. Reyk YO! 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of things wrong here, and I'm conflicted about it. Dr Ellen Kennedy is arguably notable, and indeed she already has an article at Ellen J. Kennedy. Professor Ellen Kennedy is also quite arguably notable, and she doesn't have an article at all. Ellen Kennedy the voice actress doesn't seem notable to me. The discussion was unsatisfactory in that it failed to consider the possibility of a redirect to Ellen J. Kennedy. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, it should have done. So we have a questionable discussion.

    A corollary and a consequence of Ironholds' close is that the general notability guideline overrules specific notability guidelines. I would dearly love for that to be correct. If it is correct, then let's start demoting all the SNGs to essay status right now—beginning with WP:PORNBIO, please. But, is there any consensus to that effect? Link it for me.

    If there's no such consensus, then we don't have a consensus-based close. What we would have in that case would be a close based on the closer's personal reasoning, which is spelt "supervote". I think closes like this (and this isn't the only example) show that my remarks in Ironholds' 5th RFA were right on the money.

    Reserving my !vote for the time being until there's been more discussion.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hold on a moment, redirect an article about one person to an article about some other person? That's not common practice. Best practice would be to delete the info on a non-notable person, and then create the redirect. Or better yet, Move the undoubtedly notable Ellen J. Kennedy to the simple Ellen Kennedy title. A redirect to an entirely different topic would have been a very, very odd outcome to the AFD indeed. Courcelles 21:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would it be odd?—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because the redirect's history would have a bunch of stuff in it about a different Ellen Kennedy. It would be far better to delete the article and then create a fresh redirect without a confusing history. In any case, this argument is no reason to invalidate the entire result of the AfD. If you think there should be a redirect, then there is nothing stopping anyone from creating it. The AfD doesn't need to be overturned to allow for the creation of a redirect. Also, every SNG includes some requirement that the article "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent..." (essentially a rehash of WP:GNG), so claiming that SNG's can override the GNG is perplexing. —SW— babble 22:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't say that the argument should invalidate the entire result of the AfD. What I said was that it was one of the things that were "wrong" with the discussion: Either none of the participants had done the few minutes' research necessary to find our article on Ellen J. Kennedy, or else they had found it but a redirect hadn't occurred to them as a possible outcome. Which means what while I'm sure the debate participants were in good faith, they were collectively either insufficiently attentive, or insufficiently competent, or both, to be making decisions about a BLP. See?

            I don't necessarily think that Ironholds was wrong. What I said was that I'm conflicted about it. I'd love to follow Spartaz in saying that our new practice is that all SNGs are subordinate to the GNG, at least insofar as they concern BLPs, and because policy documents practice, policy will eventually catch up.

            My concern is that our current rules don't say that. Going back to first principles, DRV's job is to check whether the deletion process was correctly followed. In this case, Ironholds followed a rule that we don't seem to actually have. Make sense?—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus despite the completely inadequate rationale set forth by the nominator, probably relist. The AFD is a grisly mess, and never really discusses the issues it should. SNGs do not override the GNG, although meeting most SNGs will create a presumption of notability that can be overridden by a strong case that the subject fails the GNG. That case wasn't made here, because the delete arguments seemed to focus more on sourcing listed in the article than on overall available sourcing. I'd also note that a quick GBooks search suggests the Jessie Awards might pass the "well-known/significant" standards for awards, even though basic notability for an award might not be sufficient to demonstrate notability for all its recipients. Overall, the AFD never got to the issues it should have, and therefore the necessary consensus wasn't reached. And you know, I'm not even sure that I see a reliable source that says Ellen Kennedy, stage actress in Canada, is the same person as Ellen Kennedy, voice actor. The stage actress's website doesn't mention voice acting, but it does list a few live action films, which don't seem to turn up in the voice actress's IMDB credit list. This needs a better and more careful look. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - while SNG are useful, they do not negate the primary criteria of the need for verifiability, as the verifiability policy says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. I am also concerned by the criticism being levelled at admins for leaving more detailed closing rationales - it seems that whatever we do in that regard we are criticised (a plain "The result was delete" is criticised as not being enough, a short rationale is likewise criticised - yet if we explain in more detail, then we are then accused of "supervotes" and the like) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, the preceding is not a policy-based !vote.  WP:V is content policy which is concerned with the content of articles, with a special case regarding their existence.  The special case occurs when the WP:BURDEN reduces the content to the empty set.  See WP:V#Notability and WP:N#NNC.  Also in conflict with the previous comments, WP:N states, "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."  The WP:Guide to deletion states, "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached".  The previous respondent was cited this text but still refused here to explain his/her closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The relationships between the GNG and the specific notability guidelines are undefined, except in those instances where we may specifically define it. er. Hullabaloo, above,and SW, also above, are wrong when they say that SNGs never over-ride the GNG--they can over-ride it in either direction, depending on what we want them to do. The proof of this is very simply that the basic WP:N guideline says that the GNG is not the exclusive standard of notability. The standard in this and every case of notability in Wikipedia, using any guideline, is what is reasonable, not the literal word as would be interpreted by a robot. I do not think it was ever the intention of notability for performers to consider voice actors as of generally the same level of importance as the usual film or stage actors. (radio voice actors may be different again & might more realistically be considered as equivalent). I'd therefore say going just by my sense of reason that for a voice actor it would be reasonable to require a clearly major national level award, and I do not think that an award limited to Vancouver would be sufficient. The closer worded it differently, but I think he in essence meant just the same. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact she was a voice actor and not a regular actor wasn't a reason for closing it as delete though. He insist that the secondary guidelines, even if met, didn't matter. That ruling should be overturned. As for the voice actor bit, please be aware that the voices must convey emotions, it just like regular acting, only you don't see their faces. I linked to in another AFD, a large number of news sources that report when a notable voice actor, even those who have done nothing else but cartoons, has died, as well as those who mention them for other reasons. There are also reviews of things, including the first Gantz movie, which had horrible reviews of the voice actors for the America dub. This is a significant part of any movie, that can make it watchable or unwatchable, depending on the skill of those chosen for this important work. Dream Focus 00:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean importance in the abstract sense, but in the usual sense here of perceived public importance,(and, consequently, available sourcing) And of course it is possible for a voice performer to be notable , or even famous--the standard for certain notability would be a national level award. City or state-level awards do not normally show notability for anyone at all. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dangit, ANN and IMDB list her as having a rather large set of contributions to diverse series. She's done a lot of work! I'm kind of surprised that there are no other sources that list her. It's sad that we still haven't found a way to work with sources that work just like ourselves (aka. eat our own dog food) , else this would have been a shoo-in. Endorse deletion for now, but without prejudice for recreation either when RS have been found in future, or alternately, if ANN and IMDB might become recognized as RS(-ish) in future. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Just pondering; we have documentation on referencing wikipedia, Might we use the same documentation as the basis for some guideline on referencing other user generated sites?[reply]
Wouldn't her name in the credits of these series be reliable sources? Primary sources are allowed if the information is not in doubt. She is already listed in the Wikipedia articles for these things. Also, the official websites of the shows and films list credits at times. PBS's Dinosaur Train for example. There was no doubt expressed she was in these things, or even that her work was notable, but whether the secondary notability guidelines of WP:ACTOR mattered if the GNG wasn't met. Dream Focus 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand which is verifiable information and the application of notability for a BLP around GNG an sub guidelines. The inclusion standard for wikipedia is multiple secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Comeon Dreamfocus I know you believe that there should be no inclusion barrier but please please when you are arguing at discussions try to keep your contributions at least loosely based on the guidelines. And anyway WP:NOT indoscrimate might apply here too. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay on topic and stop targeting me. Didn't you agree to stop closing AFDs after I brought one of your closures to deletion review and it was overturned? If you knew more about guidelines than me, would that have happened? Dream Focus 09:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is an interesting one. 2 years ago this would be an automatic overturn to keep as meeting a valid subguideline but there has been a tangible shift in attitudes over BLP since that time and community expectations about sourcing articles about people have definiately hardened. I'm also mindful that policy is what we do not what we say so I'm also basing my vote on my experience of what people say in AFDs and what DRV has been doing recently. My take is that the relationship between GNG and subguidelines has altered slightly and no doubt written policy will eventually catch up but the practical application is this. The community expects articles to be sourcable to be retained. They expect high standards of sourcing for BLPs and will not accept inclusion of articles where that sourcing doesn't exist and the concept of inherent notability for BLPs is not entirely depreciated but isn't being applied if proper searches for sources have failed to turn anything up and there are not reasonable expectations that sources can be found. The attitude to sub-guidelines standards is that they indicate where sources are very likely to exist but that where a thorough search has failed to turn anything detailed up then GNG has primacy over the sub-guideline. I have increasingly seen a lot of arguments to this effecrt over the last 12 months and DRV is increasingly willing to endorse deletions on that basis - especially for the weaker sub-guidelines such as PORNBIO which is now clearly depreciated by DRV at least. On that basis, I'm reading a very thorough search for detailed sourcing for a BLP that has not turned up anything useable. Applying administrative discretion to delete on the basis of acknowledging community expectations for sourcing BLPs over subguidelines seems entirely reasonable to be and consistent with how the community as a whole expects admins to close these difficult discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as community here. Its just whatever small random group of people show up to state their opinion. That's always been how things are determined. The only way to judge the community would be to have a strawpoll that got more than a dozen editors there. If the guidelines are relatively the same as before, then why is it they suddenly mean something else? And this isn't about it being a BLP, since all information is easily verifiable on the person's official website, and elsewhere. When books are nominated for deletion, despite meeting WP:NBOOK, will we delete them also? What about films and whatnot? Dream Focus 09:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are books BLPs? No community? What interesting observations. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the topic of books, I would say the GNG guideline as applied to books is absurdly over-broad also. Many more people here are interested in articles entertainers, so the entertainer categories are the more over-represented in terms of anything resembling actual notability in the RW DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have hordes of astronomers considered notable because they discovered asteroids Category:Asteroid_discoverers, many having no coverage anywhere at all. Making notable scientific discoveries meets the secondary guidelines for scientists, and that's enough. No one is going to interview most of these guys for these discoveries. Most species articles have no references at all. If we begin only going by the GNG then we'll loose most educational content entirely, and just end up with popular culture items that get hordes of press. Dream Focus 17:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The SNG-clingers seem to forget about the "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" part. We are not robots, following a flow-chart to arrive at a decision. We are editors who can and should use editorial discretion on occasion to decide borderline notability cases. No fault in the closer's rationale is found. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for what it is worth. My arguments and various acronyms why really don't matter, so I am not going to waste my time, and I suggest others don't anymore either. A majority of editors requested this article be "kept" with valid arguments, and as typical, Ironholds, a well respected and powerful veteran editor, decided to delete. Spartaz said it best above, "community expectations about sourcing articles about people have definiately [sic] hardened." 21:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn In terms of just the AfD discussion, it's quite clear that the closer closed it incorrectly, as there was a consensus to keep in the discussion. In terms of the actual arguments made, the issue seems to be that she meets notability, per WP:NACTOR, but she runs afoul of WP:V because of a lack of sources, correct? So, essentially, as long as we can find reliable sources that mention her in roles, we're good? Alright, see here, here, and here for articles on her work on improvisation at the Vancouver Theatresports League. This is also potentially her, but i'm not so sure on that one. SilverserenC 23:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those aren't the "signifigant" mentions that the guideline requires, below is the entire text from those articles that deal with with subject. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Parody's More Entertaining Than the Tube, Guy MacPherson, April 1, 2004, "This extended scene suffered slightly from not enough Owen and too much Ellen Kennedy, who wasn't up to the comedic challenges as defence attorney."
      • Vancouver TheatreSports takes improv to new heights with The ImprovMusical, Guy MacPherson, July 29, 2010, "The performance on July 28 featured creator Alan Marriott, Michael Robinson, Ellen Kennedy, Elizabeth Bowen, and Shaun Stewart, and damned if they all didn’t have musical chops."
      • Debt—the Musical! has a fuzzy framework, Colin Thomas, January 15, 2010, "...a western-tinged ballad about being poor with kids, sung by Tom Pickett (Murdoch) and Ellen Kennedy (Lori), is melancholically lovely. And Pickett has a great time with his wailing falsetto in some Temptations-inspired numbers. Tracey Power (Sam) has developed a charismatic stage presence, and Ellen Kennedy exudes charm and confidence."
        • Those are just examples. There are significant number of reviews that I can't access because they aren't hosted online, such as a longer comment in another Georgia Straight article I can't locate easily, an article in the Vancouver Sun, and also a review of her CD Where is Love? in Upbeat Magazine. That's the entire point of the special notability guidelines, they give reason and likelihood that sources exist, it's just that obtaining them would require more than just conducting an internet search. SilverserenC 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          Well, it's a bit difficult to barrack for restoration based upon sourcing if "examples" of sources that meet the guidelines can't be found. And yes, the reason that the sub-guidelines exist is that for these categories sources likely exist, and the reason that (per above) the sub-guidelines bow to the general notability guideline is that 'likely' <> 'certainly.' Keep bringing the sources to be discussed, but so far... And, without looking at the article, reviews are typically not considered as an indicator of notability. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver Seren, you seem to be slightly confused as to what the closer is meant to do. There is no distinction between "the arguments made" and "consensus"; it does not matter if 20 people say X and 1 person says Y if the 20 people are talking horseshit. If you believe I closed the AfD incorrectly because I did not count the number of people on either side, do basic maths and conclude that if one side had more, they must be right and it was a GLORIOUS AND UNQUESTIONABLE VICTORY FOR MOTHER RUSSIA, please mount your high horse, turn it around and keep riding it away from the project until you how AfD works. If you believe that I closed the AfD wrongly because I did not take into account sources neither discussed nor brought up in the discussion, do the same. If you simply believe that this should be overturned because there are sources that weren't discussed...then you're not criticising my close and shouldn't give the impression you are. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, did you decide everyone who said the secondary guideline of WP:ACTOR was clearly met and this article should be kept, were just stating horseshit? It wasn't just a bunch of people showing up saying keep or delete with I like it, or I don't like it, and thus able to be ignored. Dream Focus 09:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, and no, they weren't saying that; my point was merely that this is not a vote-counting game. The arguments in favour of keeping the article had less value than the arguments in favour of deleting it. If the arguments in favour of keeping it had (for example) provided the sources now available, the decision would probably have gone a different way. Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument for keeping it was it meets WP:ACTOR and that was enough. The argument for deleting it was "secondary guidelines suddenly don't matter anymore, it has to pass the WP:GNG, despite the outcome of vast numbers of other AFD over the years where the secondary guidelines were always enough. Dream Focus 09:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again substantially misrepresenting the issues. The problem was not "it meets/does not meet WP:ACTOR" but "what does WP:ACTOR" cover. Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User_talk:Ironholds#Concerning_your_closing_statements_at_Ellen_Kennedy. In the AFD Hrafn said she doesn't meet Actor. Meelar, Dream Focus, and frankie said she did, and cited that as a reason to keep the article. Aaron Brenneman cited the GNG, arguing in various places already his belief that the secondary guideline don't matter at all, it only the GNG that matters. Courcelles didn't comment on Actor but mentioned WP:V as a reason for delete, despite the fact that all information mentioned has references proving it, or can be confirmed as I mentioned before, on her website and in the credits of the DVDs she's on as well as the websites of the various shows. Anyway, there was consensus that Actor was covered, three editors making that case, while one editor rejected it. Dream Focus 10:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, for the third time in this thread alone, AfDs do not work as bean-counting. Ironholds (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor are they supervotes. You measure consensus. Consensus was it met WP:NActor. You ignored consensus, and cast a supervote. Dream Focus 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attitude towards consensus is that it was met in this case; your attitude to consensus, however, seems (from your examples) to be bean-counting and nothing more. I neither cast a supervote nor ignored consensus; I simply take the attitude that, in relation to consensus, we should maybe only count those comments which actually contain statements of value, rather than those which baldy claim "look, she won an award! you know, this award, which I have no evidence of the importance of, that has an article only cited to their website! that award! that's notable!". Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a hard one. She clearly has a lot of activities, but without sources to back it up, its hard to justify keeping. I think this will be easily fixed by just asking her for information and sources directly. Old news clippings, etc. -- Avanu (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironholds, no one said she was notable only because of that award, but instead because of her notable roles. The other two keeps specifically said she met WP:NACTOR, while I simply quoted it as "If the work is notable, then anyone who made a significant[2] contribution to it is notable." Forget the award, and focus on her meeting the first part of WP:NACTOR which was the main thing here. Dream Focus 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, because there wasn't any. Three on three should never mean the closing admin gets to cast a supervote. Yes, the sourcing sucks in its current state, but yes, the SNG is pretty well met: those are some reasonably impressive voice credits. I'd tend to call the subject's own website an RS per WP:SELFPUB, because it's not unduly self serving to list all those credits, so V is met, but it would be nice to see someone independent, somewhere, covering her as a voice actress to provide better assurance that N is met as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Its a still a primary source and its secondary sources that establish notability. The evidence is that detailed secondary sources simply don't exist and the ones put forward so far are risable. In the circumstances a closing admin has discretion how they apply the notability guidence and choosing GNG over a SNG for a BLP is a perfectly valid outcome and consistent with wider project expectations for BLPs. Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's two incorrect notions here: 1) that a page largely sourced to the subject's own website could be a BLP violation. "BLP violations" (as opposed to simply V or N failures) imply harm to that living person, and no assertion of harm is forthcoming. 2) Notability exists independently of secondary sources; they do not create it, they merely demonstrate that it exists. The GNG gives one set of rules to establish notability, while the SNGs give more specific ones. The ones in WP:ENTERTAINER reference verifiable facts, not independent RS coverage of those facts. While we use the GNG as a shortcut reasonably often, the argument that secondary sources must exist is not so ironclad in policy as to endorse a closing-admin supervote, as this was. No consensus remains the most correct close. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did I say it was a BLP vio? I didn't say that, I said that the community is setting higher standards for BLPs. That is nowhere near to suggesting that the article was a BLP Vio or that self Pub sources can be a vio. I'm really confused here. Am I just making less sense then usual or did you skim read my comment and misunderstand? As for entertainer, its a subsection of a page that states Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. To my mind that's supporting my contention not yours. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's not a BLP vio, fine--but then your comment is just out of place: there's nothing about BLP sourcing that this article violates: a subject's own website is not in any sense an unreliable source for information about him or her. Allow me to connect the dots for you: 1) this SNG only requires facts be established, not that they be covered in independent RS, 2) Official website meets V for facts about the actor per SELFPUB, so there's no need for independent sourcing, because her own website is sufficiently reliable. Thus, V is met, and the SNG is met, so N is met--all without needing a single independent reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • To be clear (and dispassionate) are you disputing that the community expectations with regard to sourcing BLPs haven't hardened in the last year? Spartaz Humbug! 07:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not in the least, just that your bringing them up was entirely irrelevant to my rationale here; unless you have something specific in mind that I'm overlooking, I think you were (unintentionally or not) talking past my argument. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The closer claimed a supervote on the grounds of the WP:GNG but this has never been accepted by the community as a policy and there are countless examples of BLPs which do not satisfy it such as Olympic sportsmen and women, who routinely get articles just for having performed. That guideline is therefore inadequate to support such a prejudiced close. Note also that the core policy of WP:V is satisfied by sources such as this which confirms the award claimed. A thin stub which is based on such awards and credits seems feasible and policy-compliant. Warden (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now that I've read the further discussion I'm ready to !vote. There are two facets to this:

    1) Vacate Ironholds' close because the deletion process was not correctly followed. Ironholds' view that the GNG overrides all SNGs may be attractive to me personally, but there is no consensus to support it. Ironholds' close therefore relies on a rule we don't actually have, and so is untenable.

    2) Relist the debate with instructions that the AfD should consider, in view of Ellen Kennedy the voice actress, Dr Ellen J. Kennedy, and Professor Ellen Kennedy who may be notable but whose article is yet to be written, whether the title Ellen Kennedy should be a disambiguation page or a redirect, and if a redirect, to whom. The AfD should also consider whether to move the current content to Ellen Kennedy (actor) or some similar title, or whether simply to overwrite it with the disambiguation page or redirect.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a quick point of clarification to both uninvolved editors and the Usual Suspects; my comment was not merely "the GNG overrides secondary guidelines, boo ya, sucks to you", it was "the secondary notability guidelines exist as an extension of WP:V and the GNG, and the participants in this AfD haven't shown there's enough verifiable material or likelihood of verifiable material to keep it around". Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilverSeren has already addressed the WP:V point. It's been shown by reference to sources in this very discussion that Ellen Kennedy (actress) is perfectly verifiable. So subtracting that, we're left with the interaction between the GNG and the SNGs, and hence the position I've taken above.—S Marshall T/C 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her existence and the fact that she's an actress are verifiable, yes - but what about any other information about her? Is there anything else verifiable? Not counting cast lists, or every actor / actress who's had a number of parts major or minor would all be notable, having been mentioned in cast lists .... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a different thing, Pesky. The point that the content wasn't verifiable would, if true, be very strong indeed and, with a BLP, surely grounds to delete. It's been addressed, though. The point that the content isn't notable is quite a different thing, and I agree that she doesn't seem notable to me personally, but she does seem to pass a SNG. A very material question for this DRV is whether an SNG can and should be used to overcome the GNG, and if so, was there ever a consensus to that effect.—S Marshall T/C 07:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion WP:ACTOR and other secondary notability guidelines aren't a way out of satisfying WP:GNG and WP:N requirements. Closing admin made a tough call but the decision is still within consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The debate was essentially between "Keep. No sources available, but ticks a box on a secondary standard" and "Delete. Fails GNG, and even if it ticks the SNG box, there are no reliable sources to make the article's notability verifiable." Given those two arguments, it makes sense to me that the close would be based on the relative strength of the arguments - verifiability being king for an encyclopedia. In short, not a supervote, but a close based on strength of arguments presented - which is generally what's expected of an AfD close. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Seems to make perfect sense to me, based on strength, not just numbers, of arguments. A tough call - but I think it went the right way. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This is an actress with a career that has obviously interacted with high profile and notable productions, who has (verifiably) won a notable award ( Outstanding Ensemble Cast - http://www.jessies.ca/A1992_93.htm ), and this article could probably have been easily sourced by just asking her or her agent for news clippings to back up the information in her article. The fact that we can't just automatically find everything in Google is not a magic bullet for destruction of verifiable content. Believe it or not, Google hasn't always existed and still manages (like Wikipedia) to leave out vast swaths of human history. -- Avanu (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, although many people are quoting the General notability guideline in determining the criteria to delete this, they are simultaneously ignoring the Deletion policy. Policy always outweighs a guideline (with the exception of WP:IAR). Under Alternatives to deletion, policy clearly states that articles that can be improved should be, as well as options for Incubation or Merging. None of these options under policy were followed in this case. I would recommend that we actually attempt to follow the whole of policy, rather than cherrypicking particular shortcomings, especially in an article such as this, where there is clearly potential. -- Avanu (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy outweighs guidelines; consensus, however, outweighs policy. Please locate a single merge or incubation !vote in the AfD. Please also identify precisely how the Jessie Awards are notable, given that those in the AfD found that impossible. Ironholds (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jessie Awards - Covered by CBC and Vancouver Sun, both reliable and notable sources themselves. And yes, consensus does outweigh many things, BUT local consensus should not lightly override policy. If we want to go against policy, such a consensus debate should occur at the page for said policy, not at a specific deletion discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avanu's remarks amount to a criticism of the debaters, rather than of the closer. Per longstanding precedent, such things are allowed at DRV; we are not required to focus entirely on the closer, but have wide latitude to examine any other factors that led to the deletion as well. Avanu's point is that there were material facts that the debate failed to uncover, which makes the outcome unsafe, and policy considerations that the debate failed to take into account, which also makes the outcome unsafe.—S Marshall T/C 07:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No arguments with that. It's relevant to DRV because if DRV decides on a "permit re-creation" outcome, it prevents a subsequent G4 from an overenthusiastic admin.—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not entirely true, it still needs to be substantially different, and a permit recreation outcome is typically based upon review of a user-space re-write. Does not at this time seem relevant? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "permit recreation" outcome isn't necessarily based on review of a userspace rewrite. See, as a recent example, M1 group. As for the need to be "substantially different"... well, see the first diff of M1 Group. It's hard to imagine a good faith admin G4ing, in view of the edit summary, even if the re-creation were of similar content. If there was a concern the admin would begin by talking to me.—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    o_O?? I said "typically," you said "isn't necessarily." So you appear to be agreeing with me on that. The deletion review you point to says explicitly "creation of a spam-free and properly sourced replacement is permitted." Which means the recreated version was required to be different. And I can see the last (deleted) version of that article, and it is different. You appear to me to be agreeing (in fact) with everything I said while implying (in tone) that you don't agree? Perhaps it's just me being thick? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the quote "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" used frequently, without apparent examination of the word "presumed." Rebuttable presumption is quite straightforward: We accept the positive case without evidence. When there is evidence to the contrary, we accept that evidence. All the subject specific guidelines are intended to do is avoid "busy work." Those article subjects that meet the subject specific guidelines probably have sufficient sources to satisfy both the general notability guideline and the core content policies. But when significant coverage in independent sources do not exist, as has been shown to be the case here, then the sub-guidelines cannot override the overarching guidelines and policies. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown them to not exist, that is your own personal opinion. As I stated before, there are a number of articles noted on Kennedy's website that are not available online. The point of the SSGs are that, unless a specific search done offline is conducted on a person which proves the lack of sources, we must presume that such sources exist. Based on the sources already found, it is highly likely that there are articles about Kennedy in theatre magazines that are not hosted online. You have absolutely no backing whatsoever to be saying that they do not exist, while I have the backing of her meeting the SSG to say that they do exist. SilverserenC 06:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not engaging on specifics, simply re-iterating that the intent of the sub-guidelines do not, nor are they intended to, be a substitute for real sources. Which you appear to be implicitly agreeing with. And what level of evidence would be enough, given the logical impossibility of proving the absolute non-existence of significant coverage? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first obvious step would be to contact the subject and ask for copies of what they've been discussed in. Barring them having copies, ask them for the names of the things they've been discussed in and look them up yourself offline. After all of that and perhaps a search through a theatre journal database (do libraries have those?), then you would have clearly shown that there aren't any more complete sources on the subject to utilize. That's what a full search entails. SilverserenC 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you seriously suggesting that for a search to be complete, and to bar any possible jockeying from our more inclusion-friendly members, we need to personally contact the article subject?! Ironholds (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The SNG's are guidelines that indicate what kind of topics are likely to have significant coverage out there. However, third-party reliable sourcing, and verifiability are absolutely non-negotiable. The arguments made in the AFD were entirely towards the delete side, and the keep side spent too much time arguing the SNG's, which are by no means trump the requirement of sources existing. Courcelles 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
V as a principle is non-negotiable, as a basic foundation of the encyclopedia--though the actual interpretation of it or any other principle is always subject to discussion and community consensus. After all, the community makes the rules and can decide how to use them. The only thing that is imposed on us from outside (e.g. the WMF) is the basic principles behind copyright and BLP--and even there it is only the principles, not the interpretation that is fixed for us. 3rd party sourcing is not non-negotiable. Reliable sourcing from a known reliable 1st party source provides adequate verifiability in some cases, though not very often.
Additionally, the SNGs can and often do trump the GNG; it depends entirely on whether we want a particular guideline to do so, or to do so in a given case. The GNG is explicitly presented as the usual alternative, not the only criterion, and it and all the rest of WP:N is in any case a guideline and therefore intrinsically flexible, even mor flexible than policy. Everything about notability is subject to how the community wants to view it in a particular situation.
The community runs Wikipedia; the WP policies and guidelines only affect us to the extent we want them to, and we can change them or make exceptions to them at any time for any reason with adequate consensus. That's the basic concept of a self-regulating community; we sometimes call it IAR. What this means is that an argument that we must follow a guideline is never decisive--it can always be challenged that in any particular case we need not follow it. If it is not we who make the guidelines, who does? The WMF is explicit it does not make content guidelines, and so is arb com. So who is the infallible legislator? DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find this argument amusing, when so many times at AfD i've seen the opposite argument, that there are enough sources to satisfy the GNG, but they don't meet any of the specific SSGs for what they are, so they are non-notable. You can't have it both ways, they specifically say that they are alternatives of each other. SilverserenC 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually, in my first year here I had not sufficiently analyzed notability, and did sometimes use the argument that meeting the GNG was enough regardless of any other guidelines. I now know better. It can be enough. The relationship between the GNG and SNG is undetermined in general, though for any particular SNG it can be specified. SS is certainly correct that other people have argued it both way, especially for athletes, and the decisions have gone in both directions--when that occurs, what that means is that the community is divided. notability is not in general something to be determined by robots, although if the community really wants to it can set something fixed. the proof that the interpretation of the relationship of guidelines, is that we continue to have these discussions. Sometimes when the guidelines conflict, the reasonable conclusion is notability , sometimes the opposite. It depends on the circumstances, and the community can judge each time. The role of the closing admin is to see what people think in the given case, not to tell them what they ought to think. I agree this sets up some amusingly confusing situations, but the world is confusing. The inherent nature of a guideline , is that any particular case can be an exception. And that is something no admin is qualified to say, nor does quoting the guideline help. I'll say that I think my interpretation of a guideline correct, but i'd never presume to say that it can be the only correct interpretation; even if I personally do not want to make an exception, I'm not the community. There question of interpretation is always a matter that can only be determined by consensus. Otherwise, when people understand the situation, but honestly differ in what to do about it, how can it be decided but by consensus? DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While agreeing with the generalities of this statement, I must demur on the specifics. Oftimes when the guidelines appear to conflict it's simply a matter of not having spent enough time examining the results. The general notability guidelines, in particular, seem prone to "robotic" interpretation, if I may use your phrasing. With respect to sports for example, multiple trivial mentions (or reproductions of identical items across multiple sources) are cited as meeting GNG for individuals who fail to meet the SPORT guidelines. In cases like that, where there is a clear directive in the guidelines (see "reliable sources" for discussion on this) it is appropiate for the closing administrator to "tell them what they ought to think." Sometimes this is as simple as saying "Where User:Foo says xxx, this is supported by the guideline at yyy." And the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs is not at all ambigious. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Brenneman, when you say, "the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs is not at all ambiguous", was this relationship defined at a discussion? Was a consensus ever reached about that, to your knowledge, and if so, could you please link it?—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, where the two most supported statements were "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability," 76% (emphasis mine) and "SNGs (only) provide subject area interpretation of the GNG," 62%. The statement "SNGs override GNG" received only 19% support. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, one way to look at that is that 19% of the time (essentially 1/5), we might have a situation where the Subject-specific Notability Guideline (SNG) might outweigh a General Notability Guideline (GNG). I think this current situation might be exactly that. We're clearly on the fence here (with regard to a clear consensus), and I have a strong feeling that we can establish notability by just asking this actress for information directly. -- Avanu (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_19&oldid=1138438085"