Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Hack

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 no consensus. The keeps actually have the better of it by my reckoning, but this is an area in which the intersection of policy and guideline is a bit blurred. The deletes have numerical superiority, but I cannot say consensus was reached. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There is no hard and fast rule whether the GNG trumps a subject specific guideline or vice versa. In this case, there is no consensus whether that the admitted failure of the article to meet the GNG should compel deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Hack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have re-edited the introduction of that article without explanation in the "edit summary": I removed reference of one animated show from the lead because her contribution to the Nickelodeon show may be pointless right now. This person provided many voiceovers; only The Brady Bunch movies are worth mentioning. Aside from those movies, I don't think she's notable for anything else, even with 60 or 100 contributions to the entertainment industry. In fact, fictional characters are more notable than Olivia Hack who voiced and/or portrayed them. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Count my vote for delete if you can. --Gh87 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is essentially an unsourced BLP (IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical info). Presumed notability based on roles is marginal at best. With significant coverage, I might be convinced to change my !vote, but I don't see that happening. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is made up of many sections and subsections and yes, some do seem to be at odds with others, or sometimes even with policy. In respecting the header of all guidelines that encourages common sense, the SNGs have been built over time to outline those circumstances where a topic might fail GNG though not being the recipient of wide coverage, yet still might be worthy of notice.

Here's the way I see it... The GNG defines cases where topic notability is usually quite apparent, and the SNGs define those topics where notability is less obvious but still worth consideration per common sense.

The simplistic formula for notability could be written "meeting GNG = notability, but if not meeting GNG, then meeting SNG = notability".

And conversely, "not meeting GNG OR SNG = non-notability".

Per policy, notability assertions must be verifiable in reliable sources, but the GNG is not a trump, and the SNGs do not themselves mandate SIGCOV. SNGs do not trump the GNG. GNG does not trump the SNGs. They are both parts of WP:N and are intended to work in concert with each and should not be seen as disharmony. A topic can fail a SNG and meet the GNG to be notable. A topic can fail GNG and meet SNG to be notable.

The guidelines are not a perfect system (which is why they are not policy), but they have been established over years of discussion and the success of Wikipedia shows they work reasonably well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I mistakenly removed the PROD tag from this article while removing PRODs from a series of articles that never should have been tagged. While I'm not in favor of deletion, this wasn't one of the articles I meant to challenge. I will say that removing the reference to "Hey Arnold!" because the nominator feels "no one watches it anymore" was inappropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes NACTORS as a actor in the fourth season of Gilmore Girls, her voice work, and The Brady Bunch films. AfD isn't cleanup and PROD reasoning was highly inappropriate and read as an attack on something else other than the article content. Nate • (chatter) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - NACTORS can establish a presumption of notability. This article lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, without which no topic is notable. That was the [PROD reasoning]: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements...." There is nothing "highly inappropriate" about that that I can see. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The GNG is not the only part of WP:N that editors may consider (see my comment above). The notability assertion of having significant roles in multiple notable productions requires verifiability, not SIGCOV, else the SNGs are worthless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - WP:V (policy, not a guideline like WP:N) states, flatly: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment No argument from me, as we are in agreement that verifiability is the key, and per policy, her work meeting WP:ENT MUST BE (and IS) verifiable. My point though was that the mandated verifiability itself need not itself be significant coverage, as WP:N and its constituent parts allow us different ways by which to determine notability other than SIGCOV. Using due diligence, I have already added her awards and confirmation of such to the article. Verifiability of all can be found... all it takes is the looking. And as I rarely just do a drive-by with my opinions, I have begun work and do recognize that there is more that can and will be done :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shame, it's true that the fictional characters she voiced are so notable and for her around 20 years of active in the industry there aren't many sources. Hope this helps the debate - additional info on her birth date and second source from one of the projects she attends (The Last Airbender) - Link Perfectford (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The tv.com source looks ok, though it doesn't give us much. The second source, though, is user created content, not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG is not the only part of WP:N that we may consider. The notability assertion of having significant roles in multiple notable productions requires verifiability, not SIGCOV, else the SNGs are worthless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO for her voice work being twice nominated for a notable award. That information and citations now added to article. Yes, more to do.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure who's still "up-and-coming after all these years. The nominations for minor award don't suffice to constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep passes WP:BIO very notable with live action and voice over roles. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2011 (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.