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.
✗plicit 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Just not seeing
WP:SIGCOV here, she's obviously appeared in quite a few films, television shows and video games, but I am just not seeing how we can write an article on her based on the current sources. a
WP:BEFORE search did not turn up anything substantial. I am aware of the current drama and this AfD is not intended to distress the BLP subject.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not disagreeing with the nomination, but the timing sure is a bit awkward. Perhaps it could be revisited some months from now when it couldn't be mistaken as an accidental referendum on the current drama?
ApLundell (
talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep She has had significant roles on multiple notable shows. 40 episodes of
Sealab 2021. Half the episodes of
Frisky Dingo. She meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors.
WP:ENTERTAINER #1.
DreamFocus 07:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete There are several possibly notable people called Kate Miller, but the subject of this article does not appear to be one of them. Having a few bit-parts in TV programmes that some people might have watched does not in itself make a person notable.
IMDB has a list of her parts. I gather from
WP:ANI that the subject of this article is a significant contributor to the page.[1]--
Toddy1(talk) 09:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
She doesn't want her age mentioned, since casting people discriminate. You just erase her age and block IP addresses from editing it, and it'd be fine. DreamFocus 10:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - topic may technically meet WP:ENT, but I agree with Ritchie333 and Toddy1. The topic is marginally notable at best, the article seems to be a negative to the subject per BLPREQUESTDELETE, and therefore it is in the best interests of this encyclopedia to remove the topic.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 17:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - It's really unfortunate the way this article ended up at AfD (per ANI thread), however I agree with the nom that there is not enough
WP:SIGCOV on her to pass
WP:GNG. The current sourcing is weak: a twitter message, a few mentions on blogs/fan sites, an interview and short mention (4 sentences) in Broadway World. I couldn't find anything in-depth online, perhaps its
WP:TOOSOON. BLPREQUESTDELETE andWP:PROMO also applies.
Netherzone (
talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter what the person themselves want. If there are no sources to support significant coverage, we don't keep it. If the person knows of coverage missing from reliable sources, they could provide that to help, but that's about as far as they can help. --
Masem (
t) 23:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This was in response to the BLPREQUESTDELETE votes, rather than as an argument the article should be kept.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 23:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Probably best to merge with John DiMaggio; sources don't seem to meet
WP:SIGCOV at present. Obviously this can change if more information is published during her career but for now I'm not satisfied notability it met.
𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete ignoring the BLPREQUESTDELETE aspect, the subject does not appear notable. The point of
WP:ENT is meant to be to predict GNG likelihood (as affirmed in the deprecation discussion for ENT #2). It's more useful to rely on at time of article creation than at AfD. Considering the sources themselves, there's not really an indication of notability here. The article subject
suggested we use IMDb or their personal website, neither of which are acceptable reliable sources. A policy-compliant article can't be written, hence the concerns from the article subject about incorrect information being added, but we can't really do so much better without proper sources.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - it ain't passing the GNG bar.
GoodDay (
talk) 18:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Question OSE and all that, but what is the actual consensus on voice actors?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Hymes closed as keep (and I agree that the close reflected consensus) and she has a much thinner claim to notability than Miller. My original inclination here after reviewing the sources and history was to !vote delete, but if Hymes is notable, Miller likely is too. I'm torn StarMississippi 19:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This is an absolute boilerplate example of
WP:OTHERSTUFF. If the other article in question has less claim to notability then a keep result there was likely wrong, but should not impact this nomination or any other.
ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ 19:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree that it shouldn't, but I wondered if it showed a changing consensus, or as you,
Hemiauchenia alluded to, a less than ideal AfD. Having differing consensus in six months surprised me. StarMississippi 22:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It can also be a matter of who is present each time; I would have argued for deletion on that one on SIGCOV grounds just as here, but wasn't a participant, likewise if I hadn't seen this one then there would similarly be a voice for deletion not present. Sometimes it's more luck than judgement which way a listing turns out.
ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇꭗ 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that the Laurie Hymes keep vote is also erroneous. There's no sources that could be used to write about her, Wikipedia is not IMDB. The same problem is also true for
Quinton Flynn who I have recently nominated for deletion, who has had a substantial number of roles.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The Hymes AFD was closed 'too quickly' (less then a week) & with only four editors input. The low input there, shows the lack of notability of Hymes.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
78 minutes early was hardly likely to affect the balance of consensus.
Cabayi (
talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. This should be nominated at a later date, as the nomination (and possibly votes) may have been influenced by the subject's (and associated COI user's) behavior, more than an impartial analysis of the the article. We should calm our emotions and at least give the article the same chance as other articles.
Pyrrho the Skeptic (
talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
WWeak keep While I wish the sources were more reliable, as an actor she’s had at least a few notable credits (e.g. Trial of the Chicago 7) so in my opinion, the bare minimum of notability is there. Notability ≠ fame sometimes.
Trillfendi (
talk) 20:11, 3 November 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.