Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Kiley

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Kiley

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

Non-notable actress that fails WP:ENT. She appeared in 2 episodes of the Sopranos, then had other memorable roles like "Neville's entourage", a part in a 24min short film nobody saw and a supporting role in a TV series that was cancelled after 7 episodes. Most sources I saw were just mentioning her as having her role in the Sopranos.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had a significant role in one of the most famous television shows of all time in which her character's death created a lot of controversy (The New York Post, while decrying her character's death, said Kiley "acted remarkably" [1]) and was a star in an Emmy-winnig PBS series. It doesn't matter if the show was only 7 episodes (it wasn't canceled, it was only made for 7 episodes; House of Cards was made for only 4), it was still a series on a major national network.--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Update: I'm not sure if it was shown nationally, but it did win a Regional Emmy [2]--Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Sopranos was a very popular show. And she was in 2 of the 86 episodes, as a minor plot device, a stripper with no last name. Her character very briefly got attention, but there isn't significant coverage about Kiley. Maybe you should consider an article about the stripper character. What major network was Windy Acres shown on? Is Wisconsin PBS now a "major network"? Please, that's a stretch even for you. And so what if the show won a regional emmy? This is about her notability. BTW, I can't even confirm she was in all 7 episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Didn't know it was shown on Wisconsin PBS, as it won a New England Regional Emmy. I guess it was national. Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a national emmy. It was regional. For the SHOW, not for Kiley. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which conclusion in itself reinforces her having the project itself being notable, even if seen as only so to New England. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sound guy was involved in the "notable project" too. Are we to extrapolate that he is now notable? Sounds almost like saying notability can be inherited. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on the sound guy. It is about a person who had a significant role in more than one notable production. That's per WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the debate. I don't view a 2 episode appearence in a supporting role (as a stripper with no last name) as being that significant. Apparently I'm not completely alone in that view. If the role were that significant, I bet the Sopranos fans would do an article on the character. They haven't. Instead you find here here: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_The_Sopranos#T], on the list of minor characters. Nor am I ready to accept 6 episodes of Windy Acres as being inherently notable since we can't find a reliable source that indicates how significant her role was. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Windy Acres has not been shown to have aired beyond Vermont and upstate New York. I don't think starring in that show can convey notability, nor can appearing in just two episodes of The Sopranos. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has indicated the PBS show Windy Acres has been shown on Wisconsin Public Television and one independent source indicates it's been shown in 10 states [3] (New England states(6)+NY=7). Just New England and Wisconsin alone are combined markets of over 20 million population. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the nom is going to point out that PBS normally gets poor ratings and that just because 20 million people could have watched it is a strawman because it tells us nothing about how many actually did watch it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems also strawman to assert that because PBS does not get the ratings of its commercial brethren that a PBS series must therefore be non notable. Are you saying that non-notability is inherited? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that the claim of "X number of people are in this market" is bogus and that when claiming who notable her appearence is alleged to be, you have to factor in the size and importance of her role and just how notable the show was. Among the factors that affect notability are things like how many people watched it. Yes, a regional emmy might get the show past notability standards, but that doesn't make everyone who appeared in it notable by default. A front page article about you in the NY Times would be much more notable than 2 articles on page 5 of section B in the weekly edition of the Farmville Shopper. 6 episodes of CSI, seen nationally by millions of people (and we can prove that) would be a stronger argument for notability than 6 episodes of Windy Acres, which we can't prove was watched by many people at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sopranos is hugely culturally important. 7 episodes on PBS not to shabby either. Rebel1916 (talk)Rebel1916 —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC). — User:Rebel1916 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Sopranos is culturally significant. But we're not establishing the notability of the show. Appearing (not starring, appearing) in 2 episodes out of 86? Not so much. PBS? Whatever my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, her TV career began with 2 episodes of The Sopranos, for which she received and continues receiving coverage for that significant role [4][5], and coverage for he wrork in Windy Acres. The she returned to school before continuing her career does not remove that notability per WP:NTEMP. The article serves the project and reader's understanding of the subject by remaining and being allowed to grow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, those are by and large episode recaps that mention her, usually in parenthesis. Saying "Tracee (played by Ariel Kiley) gets killed..." isn't significant coverage. That is the very definition of a trivial mention. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not all are. And the aditional coverage of her work in Windy Acres counts too, even without considering that there seems to be systemic bias simply because it is notable to New England and not the world. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please be responsible and post specifics, not google search results. Demonstrate the actual significant coverage. The systematic bias argument is weak. A small series that got few viewers isn't that notable, regardless of where it was shown. Nor can you call it "notable to New England", because you haven't showed anyone watched it. (Just winning a regional emmy doesn't mean it was widely watched, it means critics liked something about it). Nobody has shown any evidence that it was widely watched, only that it was shown. The potential audience is a strawman. If I put a video on Youtube, the potential audience is billions, is it now notable? Nor has anyone shown what her role was. Was it another supporting role? Even IMDB is ambiguous about how many of the actual episodes she was in. They simple pasted the entire cast list to each episode with a note that they aren't sure who was in which episode. Can you provide evidence of how many she was in and in what capacity? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, per WP:HEY I will not be jumping through your hoops. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been prudent for you to have looked and seen that I added sources to the article before asking that I please be responsible and post specifics". The article has the potential for further WP:IMPROVEment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I looked. But you didn't bother to talk specifics here. You simply asserted that google results demonstrated significant coverage. I saw the sources that you posted. Sad that 1 of the three requires us to pay 2.95 to see it and the second is an excerpt that doesn't even give her name (let alone show the significant coverage) and wants us to pay 2.95 to see the article. Spare me the lecture about "it doesn't have to be free". I know that. Just pointing out that it's odd that the only sources of her alleged notability require payment. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already know "it doesn't have to be free", I won't even go into the other problems guideline describes about depending entirely upon online sources. 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A television show, which this person was a star in, that won a New England Regional Emmy is notable. The "It probably got lousy ratings because it was on PBS" opinion doesn't make it non-notable. The show would be notable even if it did get lousy ratings.--Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did she STAR in it? Nobody has shown evidence about how many episode she even appeared in, let alone that she was the star and not just a supporting role. The SHOW might be notable. That doesn't make her notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Vermont Public Television website [6], her character Titania is part of the primary story in all but one of the episodes. [7]. And she was one of the stars, not the star. WP:ENT doesn't negate co-stars or even "supporting roles." It states "significant roles." --Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those said she STARRED? Exactly neither of them is the answer. Both say she "appeared". In fact the first one only lists one person as a star and it's a man. Saying she "starred" is your opinion and your sources don't support that. A supporting role in 6 episodes doesn't mean "starred". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please... Neither WP:ENT nor WP:N demand that any actor be the STAR in a project, as guideline recognizes that a role need only be significant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please yourself. The claim being made was that she "starred". We haven't seen that shown to be the case. Nor have we seen evidence that her appearences were significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it's "systemic bias simply because it is notable to New England and not the world" doesn't make sense to me. New England is part of the United States, and there is no shortage of Internet connections, English-speakers, or editors of the English Wikipedia there. Systemic bias would be much more of a concern if we were talking about a Chinese or Indian or African actress. I think it's just plain notability issues to say that being a regular in a television series that aired in only part of the U.S. is less notable than being a regular in a television series that aired in the entire U.S. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone claims that because her achievement was in New Englnd then it could not be notable seems like a tell. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who made that claim? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... she actually does "appear" to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. And until WP:NTEMP is rewritten by those wishing Wkipedia to be an archive only for recent events, notability is not temporay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not really. What you are asserting is "significant coverage" is what is being disputed. Just because you find mere mentions to be significant doesn't mean everyone holds that view. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention = mention. Significant = significant. Up -= up. Down = down. I never once asserted the "mere mentions" = significant coverage". Please either correct your strange math, or strike it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Post ref you added is a mention. It talks about the episode and mentions that Kiley played the role. That is one example. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor Sopranos role as a two-dimensional character (with the dimensions being "alive"-"dead" and topless"-"not topless") doesn't come close to meeting WP:ENT, and I'm not yet willing to extend WP:GNG to every college newspaper's coverage of a junior's aspiring career (which, five years later, seems to have voluntarily come to naught). No objection to merge/redirect with Minor characters in The Sopranos. THF (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly unnotable and fails WP:ENT and WP:N. Her role was minor and the minor bit of coverage on the episode as a whole does not make her notable. The other roles are also all minor. News randomly mentioning that she appeared in X role does not count as significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One minor role in a notable show and one possibly significant role in one possibly significant show != "significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows". Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (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.