Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cate Bauer

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. The most policy-persuasive, and popularly-held, view in the below discussion is the article does not meet the notability and sourcing requirements. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Bauer

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

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

Not all actors are notable. This one had only two roles in notable works (as far as our entry is concerned), one of which was just a voice for an animated piece, the other is a single TV episode. That's scratching the barrel of being a professional actor. In other words, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – I built this article up, and there are plenty of RSs on her already listed, including newspaper coverage from her stage career (which could be expanded upon). Fact is she had a title role in a major Disney blockbuster. If this was an article about an actress with a title role in a 2021 Disney film, nobody would be questioning the notability. We shouldn't let the fact that the film is 60 years old give weight to an unfair bias. Also has Wiki articles in 4 other languages. --Jkaharper (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is about to be deleted from Polish Wikipedia, not that it matters except cleanup will be needed in others too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep but the reliance on Ancestry.com for all the biographical details is problematic. pburka (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of high-profile roles ≠ lack of WP:NOTABILITY. It's a pretty notable voice role and this article is fine. Leaving a redlink or no link on the 101D article for her name would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show us a single reliable reference that states this was a "pretty notable voice role". That the film is relatively well known is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not inherited" doesn't mean that artists aren't notable for their work. She co-starred in one highest grossing animated films of all time. pburka (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pburka, Again, that's pure not inherited speculation. Was she one of the higest paid actresses? Was her voice role one of the most widely reviewed in the movie? (Note we don't even have articles about those individual fictional characters from that movie, which suggests the role itself wasn't that notable...). That would be relevant, as it was would be about her. The fact(s) about the film are not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a screaming violation of no original research. We are using the family created obituary of her mother as a source. When you have this many primary sources used in an article that in and of itself is a sign of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mere mentions are not coverage. Fails the significant coverage test. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – as per my point above, I believe having a title role in a major Disney blockbuster is in itself justification for notability. You're right however on the lack of significant coverage, but that's only because the film was released 60 years ago and so there are a scarce few articles discussing the film or her stage career online. Bauer is still alive according to the residency records on Spokeo.com (which can't be used on Wiki, hence why she's in possibly living people). Given that she's 92 in September, odds are she will pass on pretty soon. When that happens, I imagine there will be plenty of coverage on her to beef up the article. Until then, more newspaper sources can be peeled from the archives. I've looked, and there are more there. --Jkaharper (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, she does not pass WP:NACTRESS, and there is not the coverage necessary for her to pass GNG. If more coverage is available once she's dead, the article can be REFUNDed. At the moment, keeping the article for that reason would simply be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are roles that make the actors playing them significant, and starring role in Disney high-grossing classics is one of them. There is also other role in a celebrated TV series. There are references in the article, and there are also references in google books. There is an argument that the character Perdita is not that notable, but it is written in the book A Brief History of Walt Disney about the dog, who voices it and how many spots the dog has, so there is non-trivial coverage even in the book about Disney and this contradicts to the statement about non-notability. Кирилл С1 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Кирилл С1, "There are roles that make the actors playing them significant" Only if there are reliable sources saying this. Nobody has presented a single source saying that her role was significant. All that remains is a WP:NOTINHERITED fallacy: "she played a role in a major film so she has to be notable by the extension". Nope, notability doesn't work like this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there does not necessarily need to be specifically said that the role is significant. Written text about is fine. It was written in a book about history of Disney abou the character, with Disney having made tons of films that means something. Starring role in a major film is obviously significant, and it is fair to say the film is a classical one. Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one of those times where a subject should be notable but isn't. She fails WP:NACTOR because she only had one notable role. She fails WP:SIGCOV because frankly the sources just aren't there. Magazine and newspaper reviews of 101 Dalmations didn't address her performance at all (I read reviews in Variety, The New York Times, etc.); making only mention of her in cast lists. Her theatre career was entirely regional at minor venues and without coverage beyond the local paper. Even books covering the film later have very little to say about her other than she was brought in to replace another actress.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This is one of those times where a subject should be notable but isn't." But somehow, it sounds contradictory. If an interview, or a in-depth article emerges about her (and it is possible), that does not mean that she becomes notable then. If an actor with 100 or 150 roles gives an interview to a famous newspaper, that does not mean he was not notable before. There may be some signs of notability, when we can say that a person is notable without researching everything about person. Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 19:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She played Perdita, the mother dog, in 101 Dalmatians. She is one of the higher-billed actors in that film. The film is notable not just by Wikipedia standards, but beyond. Voice roles count towards notability, but coverage of this era often didn't provide extensive reviews of the voice actors, especially if they weren't celebrity voices like her doggie husband in the movie, Rod Taylor. To be morbid: There would probably be more and possibly "enough" by some of your standards if she had died--we'd have obituaries and maybe more than that. Just saying. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wishing her well, but this does suggest we could draftify it for x years and then hopefully we could restore it with the new sources, assuming they appear then. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perdita is a great role, no question about it. However, being in a single great role doesn't establish notability under our policies or guidelines. For that we would need more and better sourcing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2021 (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/Cate_Bauer&oldid=1033825891"