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. Detailed analysis of sources not refuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hayley McLaughlin

Hayley McLaughlin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I'm not seeing any independent sourcing other than unreliable sources like IMDB, Netflix, etc. This was put up for a WP:PROD which was removed more than once despite the fact there no reliable sources used as references at that time: [1] [2]. I'm not seeing anything else that indicates strong notability to meet WP:NACTOR. She was in The Librarians (2014 TV series), which has an article. But I'm not seeing another notable work she is in with a reliable source for it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose deletion, at present. [Disclosures: I have no personal interest, direct or indirect, in this individual, and so have no POV issue to declare. Otherwise, I am a regular academic editor with thousands of edits, who for personal reasons chooses not to log. Various other editors and adminstrators are aware of my work.] I oppose the deletion, at present, because the issue with the article appears to be quality of sourcing, a matter that can be remedied. (Contrary to the perspective of @ David Tornheim:, clicking on the link in the AfD template message brings up several reliable published sources, including for a recent appearance in Netflix's new (and clearly notable) series, Love, Death and Robots. Hence, I think a deletion is premature. I regularly attend to articles whose sourcing is even worse than this; moreover, despite the UK being part of the coverage of en.wikipedia.org, there is no gainsaying that there is a bias in perspective here in favour of U.S.-based film enterprises over professionals from the Commonwealth, even moreso over other English-speaking film professionals further afield. (I am quite sure, for instance, that there is more written about minor American directors and producers than about some preeminent Kenyan or ASEAN ones.) Given the possibility of improving the sourcing for the stub—for that is all the article claims to be—and the fact that we naturally know less and so lean away from Scots and other non-American English-speaking professionals in our writing, I will oppose this deletion. Note, I am not an inclusionist, and would see more of the plagiarised, unsourced material—in some cases, whole articles—removed from the encyclopedia. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this, Hayley McLaughlin should simply be tagged for improvement, and reevaluated later (should this Scottish actor's work not continue to develop as recent sources seem to indicate it might). Meanwhile, I will tag the article "BLP refimprove", and add a "Further reading" section, with any published articles on the subject that I can quickly find. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:7911:7D3:DBD5:9B47 ( talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Please look at the article now. {{BLP reimprove}} was downgradedand to {{more footnotes}} after more than a half dozen reliable sources in support of several programmes were found and added to the text and to a Further reading section. All bare URL citations have been filled, and the process of extracting the listed potential sources was begun. The IMDB and other unreliable sources originally placed are all but gone from the article now (and even before, spoke more of editor practices rather than subject notability). If anything, the more than 20 appearances of the actor presented at the UK biography site, PersonBio.org and at her IMDB page are underresearched/underrepresented, so her apparent notability is clearly understated relative to the available evidence. Moreover, the Netflix appearance in the premier episode of its Love, Death and Robots drew international press overage of the programme and this actor, who played that episode's lead/protgonist. Finally, there is a current (January 2020) recurring role in an American hit series, and very ample reliable material available to source that (and all other material appearing in this UK actor's stub). Hence, in due course, one should consider withdrawing or closing the AfD. 2601:246:C700:9B0:4400:20AC:B374:431B ( talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this,... I actually have no problem with that. Wikipedia is not a platform for aspiring non-notable actors to advertise themselves. I see way too much corporate advertising on Wikipedia, including that from Hollywood. It needs to stop. If you want to help remove the unnecessary promotion, please do. And by the way, I am an inclusionist, but not for advertising.

If you think WP:NACTOR is too restrictive, which it may be, then I suggest you go to go that page and request a change in notability requirements for actors. I might even support that, if you have a cogent and reasonable proposed change. Certainly the requirements for actors are ridiculously high when compared with the extremely and unreasonably low bar for WP:NOLYMPICS, which causes a ridiculously high percentage of all Wikipedia articles to be about people whose only notability is being in the Olympics once. I consider it free advertising for the Olympics, a huge business. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The reply is disingenuous to the point of being insulting, and misrepresents the thrust of my earlier arguments. First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis[ing] themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject. (That is certainly the case for this academic editor.) Second, it is insulting to call the recent improving work I have done on the article "advertising". WP:AGF—I removed puffery, weasel words, etc., and removed IMDB and poorer sources, replacing them with sources that comply with WP:VERIFY; as I said, I am an academic editor, and not one that writes copy for adverts, in any way or fashion. Third, no statement was made that WP:NACTOR was too restrictive, only that its application involved discretion, and that it did not necessarily apply, in as clearcut of a manner as was argued, here to the article in question, when reference to it was first made. Bottom line, this actor is doing high quality work, on highly regarded series, with highly regarded professionals (e.g., Robert Zemeckis)—see first response below, to scope_creep. People need to start working through the 20+ listed credits that are posted for this actor at the UK bio site, and see what can be supported with verifiable sources. Only then should a firm decision be made about notability. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA ( talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis[ing] themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject.

Are you sure about that? I got no reply to asking an IP editor--who seems to be particularly concerned about preserving this page--whether they have a WP:COI or not: This unanswered COI question. It seems to me based on this diff, that the editor is overly eager to have a page kept before reliable sources have reported on the actor, something the editor seems very confident will happen. Why is that? That sounds like the kind of talk you get from a WP:COI editor, like the editor is trying to promote the actor and/or works the actor is in. This IP editor is new and has worked on few articles, and shows up aggressively pushing for this one article to be saved as one of his/her biggest priorities. That's pretty typical of a WP:COI editor. But please, let's hope that IP editor answers the question and explains their COI-like editing behavior. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete All the coverage is indicative of an actor at the beginning of her career. The librarians is a guest role. Some minor, Linlithgow Gazette is a micro newspaper and Daily Record are all local new. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep ^Talk 09:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry, an actor at the beginning of their career can still be notable, and the WP guidelines you state are not clearly unsupportive of an article. First, the WP:NACTOR argument presented is based on the least of this actor's accomplishments (the The Librarians episode), not the best available (the Love, Death and Robots premier with coverage from news sources in at least four countries, and the recurring role in the Zemeckis' drama, Project Blue Book, the 2020 coverage of which is just beginning). This pick-the-earliest-and-least argument would be like evaluating Harrison Ford based on his 1970 role in Getting Straight—which no one has seen—and ignoring his next role, American Graffiti. Second, using WP:SIGCOV to take a swing at Daily Record (Scotland) is a straw man argument as well—picking the least of more than a dozen valid citations to attack. Granted, the Daily Record is not the greatest source, but it is to Glasgow what the New York Daily News is to NYC (and it is more important to that nation than the News is to the U.S.). But, more critically—why are Deadline, Variety, and io9.Gizmodo all ignored—are they not valid as entertainment sources? I'm sorry, I spent an hour, and was able to find these, and dispel the IMDB-only argument (see this diff). Until someone takes the time to review the 20 entries at the UK site that presents the full filmography, then do the work to see if there is significant press on more of the works in which this UK actor has appeared, I cannot buy these fly-by rejections based on no significant effort to investigate or improve. WP:SIGCOV was misused here, and WP:NACTOR clearly involves discretion. Actors from the UK deserve a chance at WP. 2601:246:C700:9B0:10F8:DB65:ED5E:C55A ( talk) 04:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Subject of the article is clearly notable and there are references to assert notability.-- Racklever ( talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ riley ( talk) 11:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ ~riley: As a long-term wikipedian, I have additional respect for your opinion. Can you say which WP:RS you feel is the most relevant, and how exactly she meets the standard WP:ACTOR? I have asked the IPs (who all may be the same editor) about that too. I have not seen the case made for that yet. If so, I'm willing to change my vote, but I believe it is too late to withdraw the AfD, since one other editor voted to delete. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

David Tornheim you probably meant to ping Racklever? all ~riley did was add the deletion sorting. Frietjes ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Correct. Sorry for the error. I should have pinged Racklever as I have now done here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article has been significantly updated, so in respect to WP:HEY, lets examine the references again.

• Ref 1 is the Linlithgow gazette which is local coverage. It is a micro newspaper celebrating it's local celebratory.
• Ref 2 is a good secondary source, if it was a leading part but it is guest role in the librarians.
• Ref 3 is non-rs. It is IMDB
• Ref 4 No mention of the subject
• Ref 5 Mentioned in passing as cast member
• Ref 6 Mentioned in passing as cast member. Has a small paragraph about the character, not the person playing it
• Ref 7 Mentioned in passing as cast member
• Ref 8 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
• Ref 9 Quote with no context
• Ref 10 Seems to be lead is low budget film Deadly Switch
• Ref 11 non-rs. IMDB again
• Ref 12 Second cast list in first episode. Single episode.
• Ref 13 Assuming a single episode as other voice actors are getting
• Ref 14 Confirms ref 13
• Ref 15 Confirms ref 13 although cast list is out of order.
• Ref 16 Profile page. Non-rs
• Ref 17 Confirms ref 13
• Ref 18 Ref 18 confirms 13
• Ref 19 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
• Ref 20 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
• Ref 21 to 28 is non-rs and doesn't count towards notability. There are all IMDB.

Out of the 21 references, 10 are Non-RS, meaning they don't count, leaving 12. Of those 12, 5 don't mention the subject, which leaves 7. Of those 7, 4 detail a single episode of the excellent Robot series where she is a voice actor and not the star. The Robot series is mentioned in several continents due to the very high quality animators that are being used to create the series, not her. The remaining three references, two of them are local to Scotland, one of them has Scottish coverage and not much else. Linlithgow gazette is too local to count. It hyper-local. The last ref is for film Deadly Switch, where she is a lead, but a low-budget film that is indicative of the type of film that brand new actors make. The librarian role is a guest star. All indicative of an attempt to WP:PUFF the article out. scope_creep ^Talk 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment/Reply. Your closing comment is borderline insulting. AGF. There has been no WP:PUFF from me. The Librarian piece is noteworthy as her first major gig (that I found), and it resulted in her receiving very positive mention, as a guest star (over the regular cast members), by two reviewers. That is notable. And the rest of your analysis is misdirected, and your time cataloging the sources significantly misspent. With regard to misspent: unfortunately, you waited with your analysis until the nice, short list of sources I provided in my opening hour of work became adulterated with with added IMDB sources. I do not think they should stay, and I will remove them, so your list will very quickly become obsolete. Had you done your analysis earlier, you would not have been able to draw as consistent of a negative conclusion as you did. With regard to misdirection, as repeatedly stated: (1) The original AfD report addressed the fact that there were no reliable sources, with the article relying only on IMDB. (2) I then put in the hour, drawing reliable sources using the News search link appearing in the AfD header, to make the point that the subject was indeed subject of several WP:VERIFY-compliant news reports, and so that the original AfD objection was misguided—there were available sources, the original posting editor simply had not looked hard enough. And disingenuous, significantly, because (3) there has never been an argument from me here, none whatsoever, that the task of sourcing is done, or that this set of sources are sufficient or best, simply that non-IMDB sources were available for this actor, and that they were WP:VERIFY-compliant and satisfactory for a stub-length article.

In response to the improvements I made to the original IMDB-only article, editors are now moving the goal posts, attacking the first-pass, clearly preliminary sources for a stub—sources that are clearly good enough for a stub. So I reiterate what I said in response to David Tornheim above. A firm decision about notability should not be made until the many listed entries in this actor's filmography—appearing at the UK bio site, and/or at IMDB—are researched. That is to say, our time is better spent improving the article and its sources, rather than arguing about matters not in dispute. After we know if the actor is notable, only then should people firmly decide. And we will know after the work is done on the credits this actor has posted. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA ( talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't believe we should discount Scottish newspapers because they are local to Scotland, local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability talk page), imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment/Reply. As I stated in response to scope_creep's vote, I agree with you, that disparaging a Scottish newspaper just because it a Scottish publication, e.g., from Glasgow, the most populous city in that country, displays a bias that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of WP:VERIFY, and of this being an encyclopedia for all English speaking countries. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA ( talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Atlantic306 said above "local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability". Are you sure about that? I assume you are talking about this discussion. I didn't read all of it carefully. From skimming it, I am not at all convinced that because this is being discussed at length that the result of that discussion is a definitive determination along the lines you have stated. For example, I believe from reading and participating in WP:AFDs regarding notability in sports, that a person in a high school or other junior league who is doing really well, or who made some important play, and has been covered by multiple local papers is hardly notable. I'm pretty sure I have seen those kind of articles rejected more than once.

I think part of the issue of local papers is how one satisfies the requirement of "significant coverage", as in WP:GNG. If a small community of 1,000 has a magazine of that size--one that can be demonstrated to be secondary, reliable, and verifiable--and that magazine does a long story on a local band by a local "expert" musician who saw them in town and loved their work, does that really count the same toward "significant coverage" as when BillBoard magazine has coverage with the same number of words by an expert with a similar level of expertise? I find it hard to believe that the two articles are equal in establishing "significant coverage". In that sense, I do think the size of the distribution can be a factor in notability, rather than simply reliability. Was that covered in the discussion you mentioned. If not, I might throw that in. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Atlantic306: I'm not discounting the papers in Scotland as sources. The Record Daily is a national Scotland daily. The Linlithgow Gazette isn't. It is so small I hadn't heard about it. It is worth noting that the subject has not been mentioned in the two scottish broadsheets, The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. Folk have to make up their own mind. scope_creep ^Talk 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• "KEEP" - Having 22 film and tv credits. This actress is in the main cast in the later years. I have added IMDB as a ref for each film and TV item item. However, they have been deleted by someone. SWP13 ( talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

iMDB is not WP:RS. See WP:RS/P. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

SWP13 I checked your Afd stats, as it clear you have no looked at it. You have completed 6, two under your own steam and you have a 0% success rate. I would rather trust the nominator. scope_creep ^Talk 22:37, 18 December 2019 (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.