Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Speedily deleted as per CSD:G4 and G12 by Sarahj2107. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley

edit
AfDs for this article:
Emily Schooley (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)

Literally just deleted at an AFD, and yet this article has been recreated again (and I don't think this version qualifies for CSD G4). Still fails WP:GNG, still fails WP:NACTOR; sources in the article are largely identical to the ones in the deleted article, and are all either unreliable, primary, local, or simply don't have any in-depth content about Schooley. Not anywhere near enough notable roles for her to pass NACTOR either. And the article reads like a pure promo piece. This needs to be salted this time, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - subject at least meets WP:BASIC, if not WP:GNG which I would argue for as well. Also, I have taken the time to significantly improved sources on the article. Including regional print newspaper sources such as Scarborough Mirror and Kitchener Record, which mention Schooley's contributions as an actor, relevant to the Greater Toronto Area and Golden Triange Areas of Ontario, Canada. Also, if you view the discussion with Winner 42, they mentioned they would NOT have submitted the article for deletion had it not been vandalized. See [here]. Sadfatandalone (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First things first; it doesn't matter one jot what Winner 42 would've done. This is my nomination, not theirs. Secondly, Scarborough Mirror and Kitchener Record are not regional sources; they're local sources. Schooley does not appear ANYWHERE in the Scarborough Mirror source, she is namedropped in the Toronto Star source, and she is literally just mentioned in the other local sources. Schooley isn't even close to meeting BASIC, let alone GNG; just having your name mentioned once in a local paper on multiple occasions isn't a grounds for notability. Sadfatandalone is also a SPA with regards to Schooley, and has made no other edits to any other topic as of this edit. There are also some BLP violations in the article, as it stands, which I will go and redact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you're right about the Scarborough Mirror — but The (K-W) Record is the main daily newspaper in one of Canada's 10 largest metropolitan areas, so it absolutely does count as a sufficiently regional source for our purposes. She certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG if The Record is the only reliable source that can be provided, but it does count for a lot more toward GNG than the Scarborough Mirror does. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, as a further note, this page is a clear copyright violation of Emily Schooley's own biography... so tagged under CSD:G12. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article, as written, makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:NACTOR — and it's relying overwhelmingly on primary and unreliable sources, with only one appropriately reliable source (The Record) which is not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC if it's the only legitimate source you can provide. Nobody is entitled to an article on Wikipedia just because they exist — and this article, as written, is not properly demonstrating that she's passed any of our tests for how an article is earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison's sake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlynne_Medrek - this is another actress that has been in Clutch who has a Wiki entry. What makes one notable and one not? Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of actual reliable sources. But also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly the part where it explains that sometimes something or someone that does have an article might not have actually met our notability rules either and may also need to be deleted — even for her, I'm not seeing a strong claim of notability that would actually make her a slamdunk keep at AFD either. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for clarity's sake, how does Wikipedia define "a large fan base"? If you look at Emily's social media followers, they are all in the thousands, which would indicate some level of interest. As well, there has been media coverage of numerous shows she's done, which have been significant and notable to a community (the horror community, the Toronto Fringe community). Am just seeking clarification, as I am one of her fans and would like to make the page good enough to keep. Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having X number of followers on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube counts for nothing toward notability if reliable source coverage isn't there to support an article — our inclusion criteria are defined by coverage in reliable sources, not by how many people have clicked "like" on a social media platform. Examples of how the criterion might be passed would be if an actor or actress is considered by directors to have the ability to "open a film", meaning "a lot of people will come see this film on opening night specifically because this person is in it", or if an annual fan convention develops specifically around the actor and their work, attracting hundreds or thousands of fans from across the country. But it's sourcing the fact to reliable source coverage of them passing the criterion, not just asserting it as "it's true because I say it is", that gets the person over the criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Do interviews with the subject count as reliable sources? Or how about Youtube videos, Twitter statuses, general blog posts, or any article that the subject has written themselves (I assume not)? Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All no. Reliable sources, for our purposes, are media outlets independent of the subject and her own self-promotional efforts that choose to devote their editorial resources to giving her substantive coverage. The ideal class of sourcing for a Canadian actress would be things like the television network news divisions, the major market daily newspapers, The Canadian Encyclopedia, extended profiles on CBC Radio (e.g. a feature interview on Q) and nationally distributed magazines like Maclean's. Medium market dailies still count, though. Weekly newspapers are acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough of the higher class of sourcing has been added to cover off the basic notability question, but do not themselves count toward establishing the notability. Blogs don't count unless they're published by an organization recognized as having established editorial standards (e.g. Torontoist or BlogTO or CBC Music or the Huffington Post or a columnist for a major media outlet who uses a blog format to publish his column on that media outlet are okay; a non-notable individual person's WordPress blog is not.) Any page that simply reposts her own self-penned marketing bio from her own website is not an RS. A fan forum is not an RS. Interviews depend on the substance — one on Q would count, because it's an extended and substantive interview that wouldn't have been given to her if the show's producers didn't think she was notable enough to draw an audience, but a magazine or newspaper just giving her a puffy little "Do you prefer cats or dogs?" Proust questionnaire would not. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am still confused. If sources offered to interview her (not just republish bio, but talk to her about her work) would that not be independent of the subject and some sign of public interest, even if they are online? It sounds to me like Wikipedia still looks for mostly newspaper sources? You also mentioned fan conventions - does an invitation to appear at the convention matter? Sadfatandalone (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of how substantive the interview is, and how much it does or doesn't resemble "just a free platform to promote herself" — and it's also a question of whether the interviewing organization would count as a RS in the first place (CBC would; a weekly community newspaper would not.) Most interviews don't really pass that test. Being invited to appear at a fan convention would only count for something if she was the subject of the convention — the staging of a full-fledged "SchooleyFest" would pretty clearly indicate notability, but merely being invited to speak on a panel at a Star Trek convention, where the subject of the panel was the sex appeal of Patrick Stewart rather than anything about Schooley herself, would not. Newspapers, for what it's worth, tend to be the easiest sources for us to look to since they're online and/or archived and databased — but we're in no sense restricted to only newspaper sources, as books and magazines and academic journals and radio/TV news or documentary count too (they're just not always as easy to access quickly or verifiably). Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So purely online interviews are not counted from what you are saying? Aren't interviews designed to promote oneself, regardless of size of outlet? (WG). That aside, it seems she was an invited guest at three (at least) conventions - Ad Astra to perform improv (2011), Polaris as a notable guest (2010), and Notacon as an invited speaker about filmmaking (2010). So, it seems it goes beyond just being on an unrelated panel. Thoughts on that? Sadfatandalone (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and Bearcat. To Sadfatandalone I have been invited to speak at conventions, I have been in my local newspapers, I have been in newscasts. I have performed in multiple live theater events and in the for Olympics for non-sporting events. I am not notable. If I wanted to I could overload an article with references that include my name, picture, or video of me, but that still does not make me notable.VVikingTalkEdits 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the spirit if not the letter of G4 (article recreation after a deletion discussion). @Sadfatandalone: I did not agree with the previous deletion closure, but for the AfD process to be meaningful we need to respect the community's decision. Has something about the subject (not the article) changed in the last month that would invalidate the previous discussion? If you simply disagree with the previous closure, the process for review is WP:DELETION REVIEW. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — fails WP:NACTOR. This should really be G4'ed (and someone else might very well come along and do it), but I'm leaving it given the nominator's concerns so that a solid result can be flushed out. Seems trying to gain notability by gaining an article (and not the other way around). Creating a bunch of socks (and/or getting friends and colleagues to help in prior AfDs) also isn't helping, nor do interviews/posts on their sites help to establish notability due to failing reliable sourcing. --slakr\ talk / 05:15, 10 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Schooley_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137826509"