Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoë Soul

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Soul

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources does not meet the inclusion criteria (even WP:ANYBIO), and qualifies for deletion.

It may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article on 'Zoe Soul'. Well, there are some coverage of her, but they are all commentary of the subject about themselves, i.e interviews, hence can't considered independent and contribute to establish notability of the subject.

Yahoo celebrity search engine doesn't produce even a single result for the subject ([1]). I'm not here saying that Yahoo determines notability on Wikipedia, but it at least gives us an idea about. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Would anyone looking at her career feel that WP:ENT is verifiable? if so, this may be less a matter of Too Soon and finally one of Just Soon Enough for a suitable stub to remain and be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there before I decided to bring the article to afd. I think, it is borderline (only #1 of WP:NACTOR?). Because if they've had the significant role in multiple films, tv shows, etc., why are they not independently written about the same in multiple reliable sources. They appear to be notable for The Purge: Anarchy film, but again, here all we got are interviews (not independent). The idea of 'hidden sources' does not look me that much promising for USA.

My actual concerns are, are we going to write an article entirely based on affiliated/unreliable sources? I have had mind make-up that if someone shows me here two or three secondary, independent and reliable sources that might help to write a stub, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that she owns the reliable sources that made the editorial decisions to interview her? Or that she owns the production companies that put her in her many projects? My thought here is that if independent sources asked the questions, then the attention was on her by them... oversight evidenced by their reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and such. In other words, if/when media interviews Obama and he responds, would media coverage of their interview also be considered non-independent? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you didn't intend so, but I feel like being misinterpreted. I wanted to say, Interviews are simply what subject say about themselves, and the publishers irrespective of the their reputation present the material word for word without having them checked for facts and accuracy. In this sense, it is a primary/non-independent source and could be considered "self-published". It can be reliable for what subject/interviewee claimed about themselves but not for what they said, is really true. So, coming to my first line of my previous comment, in diff. wordings, 'are we going to write a commentary of subject by the subject in their article and call it is an 'encyclopedia'?

And, answer to your question related to Obama, is 'Yes'. It could only be reliable for what Obama said, not what they said is true (similar to their personal website). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it was just the Purge role or the Reed Between the Lines role, I'd say that it should redirect to the cast page for that particular film. However in this case we have an actress that has performed a substantial role in a TV series and a major film. It's also worth noting that her getting a role in a pilot episode was considered to be noteworthy enough for an article in Deadline. (As did her addition to The Purge 2 and is highlighted in some reviews, I might add.) She's not the most overwhelmingly notable actress out there, but she does just barely squeak by notability guidelines. It's also worth noting that she did her early work (Reed Between the Lines) as "Zoe Borde", so that should be taken into consideration as well. This is a close squeak, but there's enough here to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as interviews go, I've never been a fan of the idea that they can't show notability in some aspect (since that usually appears to be a common argument against it) because in most normal situations someone has done something of note to merit winning an interview. There are people who are known for WP:ONEEVENT that gain interviews, but someone gaining an interview for a 15 minutes of fame type situation (owner of the IKEA monkey, longest toenails, winning a spelling bee at a very young age, etc) isn't really the same thing as an actor or actress getting interviewed for their work on a film or TV show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Substantial role in a TV series and a major film'? What kind of substantial role it was, that no reliable sources did bother to write about it? Seriously, getting a role in a TV episode really does make a person eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia? You've listed here four sources in your keep !vote for her, one, two, three and four, All these are having passing mention of the subject to the extent that neither one do mention the word 'Zoe' more than once. I'm really curious and interested to know what notability guideline according to your understanding does make the subject notable for Wikipedia? She has worked in few films, and sources had to mention the cast of the film when did write about the film. That's it. Here is the crackdown on all available sources about the subject,

Blackfilm.com Interview. The source appears to be more like a blog site, who in their 'About' section say, "The site provides a forum for filmmakers, scholars and organizations to present information and promote artistic expression."
Bet.com Four lines
Bet.com A video
hollywoodthewriteway.com blog. I don't think, it's worth to discuss them here. See their About me
The Birmingham Post (England) on Highbeam Passing mention. They have written an article about a film and they had mention the cast, so did they, when they were discussing the plot of the film, they did write, "Anna and the Birch's girl, Eliza (Zoe Soul), disappear to look for a missing whistle and never return."
-TvGuide Passing mention. They have written about the film, Zoe has again successfully secured a passing mention as they wrote, "[..]and Joy’s older sister Eliza (Zoe Soul) had seen parked on their street at the exact time the girls went missing."
Deadline.com It says, Subject has been cast in a Tv show. That's it. Passing mention -nothing else.
Blog.infiewire.com It says, subject has been cast in the sequel to the thriller The Purge. Again, passing mention -nothing else.
dreadcentral.com Passing mention. Listing of subject, in cast of a film
dallasnews Passing mention. One line, "[..]and relative newcomer Zoe Soul (Reed Between the Lines)."

It is indisputable that at this moment taking into consideration all available sources about the subject, they do not meet the WP:GNG. Only hope for them is, WP:NACTOR criteria #1 which says, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." My question is, what kind of substantial role has the subject played in into their films that no reliable sources mention them out of the cast listing? Please provide reliable sources to support your claim. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the simplest way to gauge notability, the GNG is not an absolute mandate. See WP:GNGACTOR. After analysis of the above arguments, we have a suitable stub on a topic finally ready for an article. BET is the pre-eminent source covering African Americans in entertainment. [2][3] And as BlackFilms reports on African American films and filmmakers, it does not appear quite as "bloggy" as the nom would disparage... and actually blogs are not all disallowed. More, What is ignored is that the required verifiability of information within a BLP does not itself have to be SIGCOV, and reliable sources Birmingham Post, TV Guide, Deadline.com, Indiewire, Dreadcentral, and Dallas News all act to give the policy-mandated mandated verification of facts within this stub. Also we need to accept that the major body of her work was done as a minor, and likely has a relationship to how reliable sources (outside of BET) may have chosen to cover her when she was younger. As for "significant roles", it seems reasonable that being cast as named character Kaci Reynolds (important to plot and story-line) in 25 episodes of notable series Reed Between the Lines is significant. It's not as if she were cast in a one-time and insignificant role of "girl-in-crowd". And major character Cali Sanchez in The Purge: Anarchy is also not an insignificant descriptive role. More, her role as Eliza Birch in the notable film Prisoners (2013 film) was significant enough to receive NBR Awards recognition... so we have enough to see that WP:ENT (prong #1) is met (all prongs need not be). This stub serves the project and its readers by remaining to grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with above voters, her roles in Reed Between the Lines, The Purge: Anarchy and Prisoners look significant and WP:ENT is very likely met. Cavarrone 09:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And note: No need to relist a 3rd time, as we have policy and guideline based consensus for keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:48, 22 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.