Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleisha Allen (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. There is now a clear consensus that the sources cited in support of this article fall short of providing the independent, reliable, and substantial content necessary to support the existence of an article. No prejudice against restoring to draft for further investigation and development of sources. BD2412 T 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleisha Allen

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Aleisha Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 12 decided that this recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD should come back here for a second visit. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SportingFlyer, I've added some new sources from jet magazine and the New york times to be a significant source for her acting career. Check the article if you're intrested. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is just name-checked in both of those articles, those sources are far away from being WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But these are still undeniable reliable sources that is used for her acting career which is a part of GNg. and the rotten tomatoes source is Signifcant coverage. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Actresses have rather high notability but fails WP:GNG. ~Cupper (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Actress passes guideline one of WP:NACTOR, Having significant roles in Blue's Clues and Are We There Yet and It's sequel. And the article of the actress has multiple reliable references to support and verify her acting career. And she fits criteria two of WP:GNG as a result of passing WP:NACTOR. ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." And there are multiple independent sources mention on the article for WP:GNG. You can't just pint out the significan t coverage clasue without pinting out the others. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources which have been added do not demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guideline:
  • [1] includes the subject in a list of people who were born on a certain day. It isn't significant coverage and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it used Wikipedia as a source.
  • [2] is a book which has "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" - it's therefore a copy of the deleted Wikipedia article which someone will print on demand. It's not a usable source.
  • [3] is from a site which offers mass-produced clickbait pages about celebrities. It doesn't look like a reliable source. It claims she is worth several million dollars, which seems rather unlikely.
  • [4] is a catalogue entry in the Library of Congress, it's not significant coverage.
  • [5] is the subject's biography on Rotten Tomatoes. I strongly suspect it was written by the subject or her agent, which makes it non-independent.
  • [6] presents a list of brief biographies of people who were in the film School of Rock. The subject appears last in the list (at #14) and it doesn't represent significant coverage.
  • [7] namechecks the subject in a credit for a film. Not significant coverage.
  • [8] also namechecks the subject in a credit for a film. Not significant coverage.
  • [9] is a student testimonial by Aleisha Allen at a university. Even if we take it on trust that it's the same person it's not independent because the subject wrote it.
  • [10] says that Aleisha L Allen is a fee based instructor at a university. Not significant coverage.
  • [11] is a directory entry for an Aleisha L Allen. Not significant coverage.
  • [12] is IMDB, which isn't a reliable source.
WP:NACTOR is not a substitute for the general notability guideline. From WP:BIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Hut 8.5 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hut 8.5, How would you suggest I fix the article per WP:Improve the junk since you so strongly opinionated and tenacious on deleting it? How's a entire magazine talking about the movie and mentioning the actors of the movie not significant coverage? I think You're thinking too harsh on these sources. And the subject studied at columbia university and if you think that's not signifant coverage you can contact the person at their phone number. It's pretty difficult to find full on articles about the actress that has stepped away from the acting limelight, but that doesn't completly justify complete article completion. And your criteria of significant coverage is debatable at best see Wikipedia:Significant coverage not required where it says "In short, regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources". And from the policy WP:BIO it says and i quote " Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." It supports the content of her being pathologist and is good source to be used in the personal life section. And guideline one of WP:ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." The actress has been nominated three times for awards one of them being an individual award for her Co-starring role in Are We There Yet. And she has had significant roles in the field of television and movies being a main character on Blue's Clues for 130 episodes, Co-starring in are we there yet and it's sequel. And WP:NACTOR is the actor/entertainer extentsion of WP:BIO designated for actors because said policy is too broad. And with significant coverage the coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Are expecting an entire article on the person? The Jet magazine article mention her a good couple of times and has her and her fellow cast members of are we there yet on the cover. And I used the sources to substantiate certain parts of th article such as the first source I used to confirm her birthday, the 8th source I used to confirm her appearance in the film. And using opinionated sentences like "and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it used Wikipedia as a source."and "I strongly suspect it was written by the subject or her agent, which makes it non-independent." is not helping your side of the arugument. Even so that source was created this year when the current wikipedia article was a redirect. these are speculations that doesn't justify the credibility of said sources. Source 1. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted passing NACTOR does not necessarily make someone notable. NACTOR is supposed to indicate that someone is likely to be notable and that sources passing the GNG are likely to exist. If sources meeting the GNG do not in fact exist then a subject which passes NACTOR can still be deleted. I'm not hugely surprised that someone who barely passes NACTOR on the basis of a small number of roles as a child actor (one of them voice only) does not meet the GNG. American actors who were active recently are exactly the kind of people who would receive media coverage if significant. I'd be willing to give more leeway if the subject was one where suitable sources may not be accessible, but that's not the case here. The subject doesn't meet the ANYBIO test as there's only one individual award nomination and even if she did ANYBIO falls into the same category as NACTOR.
The GNG does not require that every source meets the standard of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, but there must be some sources which do. I don't think any of the sources in the article qualifies, for the reasons I gave above. Even you seem to have conceded that it isn't possible to find suitable sources ("pretty difficult to find full on articles"). To meet the GNG sources need to do much more than "mention her a good couple of times" or "confirm her appearance in the film". Hut 8.5 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources aren't great, but probably at the GNG bar. One source in particular is really good and detailed, but reliability is questionable (biography today). I think Rotten Tomatoes is considered reliable? Certainly meets the first prong of WP:NACTOR so keep. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes appears to be considered reliable WP:ROTTEN and the coverage, while cursory, isn't trivial. [13] is also terse, but reliable. [14] is quite detailed, but I've no clue how reliable it is. As I said, probably at the GNG bar. Plus meets a SNG. So a keep IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This whole article never should have been recreated. Not withstanding its clear and present G4 eligibility, the article makes no credible claim of significance for its actress and fails spectacularly to establish any notability whatsoever. Of the sources given the first only definitively proves show was born on the 28th of April, the second goes to a book which according to to google's preview tool looks very much so to be based on Wikipedia, which would disqualify it as a reliable source since editors can not cite Wikipedia. Married Biography, the third source, looks to be an entirely fan run cite since the overwhelming majority of the articles appear to have been created by Olivia Clarke, but there is absolutely no about us page to lend credence as to the site's reliability. The library of congress citation provides no information to support the claim that she was born in a specific location or that those are her parents. The rotten tomatoes link is sound, but on closer inspection appears to be very closely worded to this article - enough perhaps, to raise eyebrows (although I begrudgingly admit that there are only so many ways you can say something before it all starts to sound the same). The Entertainment weekly citation supports that she was in best man but does not include any mention of the show out of the box despite the apparent attempt to use this source to verify that fact, making its use misleading. The Jet source provides no information whatsoever, it just lists her as a cast member which is a far cry from proving a usefully source, and as it is the reference doesn't actually highlight the actress, it highlights her male co-star, suggestion a desperate attempt to artificially inflate the number of sources in this article at the expense of the quality of the sources. The New York Times article requires a subscription to read (according to my browser) which means any use it may have in supporting is severely offset by the fact that I can not read it, and if I can't I'm guessing others can not either. The PACE source is a student testimonial, which reads as being promotional, however the source only covers the PACE graduation and makes no mention of Columbia university, which again is misleading since sources at the end of the sentence should cover all applicable information unless noted otherwise. Source 12 and 13 are youtube and imbd, neither of which are considered reliable sources. Collectively, then, the article reduces itself to "she is a former child actor with two roles of note now working as a speech therapist in new york" which passes none of the criteria set forth at WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF, which in my mind then begs the question...why do we need to have an afd when A7 and G4 should clearly and unmistakably apply here? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because A) as shown at DRV, this doesn't meet either A7 or G4 and B) she clearly meets WP:NACTOR (GNG is more debatable, my arguments are above). Are you claiming she didn't have "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."? If so, is that because she didn't have significant roles or because the productions weren't notable? I can't tell what your argument is wrt NACTOR. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good improvements have been made to the article since AfD nomination. I see nothing wrong with notability or sources used.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I agree that they pass WP:NACTOR, it's just barely. And when the SN is a barely pass (like a football player who plays in a single game), then GNG comes more into play. And in this instance, they clearly don't pass WP:GNG, as ably demonstrated by Hut.Onel5969 TT me 22:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Onel5969 So being in 130 episodes(6 seasons) of blue's clues as a major role and co-starring in Are We There Yet and Are We Done Yet? is barely passing the WP:NACTOR bar? You're leaning on GNG specifcally the significant sources section way too heavily. GNG is mostly in place as a testament to partially determine notability. Notability comes down to multiple factors such as significant roles which is very presentt and the award nominations a actor recives, but nonetheless there is many to attribute to notablity and GNG is not the sole determining factor if x actor has a broad enough notablity to recieve a page, which would make the deletion process extremly flawed. You should aslo look at WP:Significant coverage not required because significant cover regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources which I have provided and I have found another significant source from TMZ. And most biography pages on the enclyopedia are made based off of the notability of the subject , not how many primary and significant sources you can find on the subject, Don't get me wrong, you need them though. And you also you have to remember Notability is not a level playing field, the amount of Significant coverage is not the only that determines if a page stays or not, Because for some biographies minimum could be just one or two while other will need several. The significant source that is is the rotten tomatoes source I used per WP:ROTTEN. And on top of that reliable sources are present at the article to demostrate verifiablitly on certain content such as certain movei roles and early acting career which is part of GNG clause. Hut 8.5 only attempted to rebutt the signifcant source claim that I made which I pointed out the holes in side of the arguement with my rebuttal. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here passes muster. There is no significant coverage presented here - nor in my searches online - covering her in reliable secondary sources except mentions of "where are they now" type coverage for School of Rock, celeb junk birthday sites and Just Jared Kids and a Rotten Tomatoes bio that reads like an Imdb entry. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no, no one is going to convince me playing a table on Blues Clues is enough to get you an entry on Wikipedia. I don't know much about that show (in fact, I just recently learned Blue is a female while watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade...who knew ) but, I looked at the Blues Clues article and using that as an argument is silly, when most of the other re-occurring characters in that show don't even have articles about the actors. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2020 (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/Aleisha_Allen_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069059456"