Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ugh, what a mess. A discussion that included accusations of canvassing, which was then somewhat questionably closed as delete, then the deletion reversed without a deletion review, then renominated by a since-banned editor. The editors commenting still have strong disagreements about whether the sources show significant coverage, and the procedural issues noticeably contaminate the discussion. Finding a consensus in this would either be a miracle or a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I don't have faith in either. I'm closing this as no consensus and would strongly encourage the editors involved to leave this one alone for a few months. RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Mongillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Casey Mongillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


So, it would appear that another admin (User:Lord Roem) has undone the deletion using one of his admin tools without consensus. I would love to see solid evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:WHYN. I'm repeating my previous arguments. I'm ready for Round 2. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC) - User has been site banned by Arbcom[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The notability standard for voice actors is set out in WP:ENT, which requires that they had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," in this case, the productions being dubbed content. The question is then not whether the subject of the article necessarily has a slew of news articles about them, but rather if there are sources for their involvement in "significant" roles. First and foremost, they held the lead dub role for Neon Genesis Evangelion, a major title in the anime and dubbing space. There's a Vice article exclusively about their performance, an article from TV Guide which praises the performance's emotional tone, and a Forbes opinion piece all of which takes place in the context of a controversy regarding a dispute of queer erasure from the show (Vox article) and Slate article). In addition to this lead role in a single production, they were a major secondary character in Mob Psycho 100, also a significant anime title, Kirisame in B the Beginning, a title distributed by Netflix, were a major character in the Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir, and were in a large array of game titles, like Octopath Traveler, and Red Dead Redemption. Against the context of voice actors as a lesser-known role within production environments, this kind of coverage and diversity of lead and secondary roles, covered in reliable secondary sources, is more than enough to support inclusion of this article. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::A few mentions isn't WP:GNG. The only extensive coverage I see here is the Vice article. All these sources have been analyzed before, yet the subject's article is still mostly WP:SELFPUB tweets. That's not notability. I only see one major role, and that is Shinji Ikari, in a redub that is significantly drawfed by the siginficance of the original English dub with Spike Spencer (who has continued to reprise the role in the Rebuild films). Where's the coverge for the rest of the subject's roles? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the standard. The question is whether they held "significant roles" in "multiple productions," which is undeniable. There is no need for there to be an article analyzing their performance every time. The SIGCOV guideline is intended to ensure we aren't limited to fleeting information about a person, which isn't a concern here. The other titles I've listed, in addition to the major game releases--Red Dead Redemption as one critical example--makes your argument rather hollow. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::Isn't the subject's role in Red Dead Redemption just a minor role? How is this notable? How does the subject meet WP:ENT? I'm genuinely curious. An actor could have a bunch of roles, but if there are no reviews and no coverage, how do we know for certain that it's notable? Just getting cast and putting them on a resume isn't my understanding of notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I feel like I'm repeating myself. This isn't a case of an amateur voice actor who's had a single role and nothing else- the subject is prolific. Red Dead Redemption, Mob Psycho 100, Ladybug & Cat Noir, B the Beginning, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. There's no numerical threshold in WP:ENT, but whatever it may be, I see no strong argument for why this doesn't surpass it easily. On top of that, there is significant coverage: Vice, TV Guide, Forbes. Now, if you think the standard is too easy to clear (which I would disagree with), you're more than welcome to open an RfC on changing it. But as WP:ENT stands, the subject of this article hits those criteria. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Brief mentions isn't WP:SIGCOV. All the articles *but* Vice had no significant coverage. But it's clear that you don't agree with me on this, so we'll let everyone else decide that. As for WP:ENT, that's debatable. You keep saying that the subject has appeared in those aforementioned works, but you did not specify if they are major, supporting or minor roles. You only mentioned them as "significant" titles on their own. Is that supposed to be a notability argument? Cuz I'm not really convinced..... We'll see. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sho from Mob Psycho is a lead secondary character, so much so they were included in a Q&A with the dub producers (Crunchyroll source here). Sandboy from Cat Noir is a secondary character who appeared in multiple episodes. Kirisame in B the Beginning as well, and it goes on. I agree that someone doing walla, even were it a major show, would not be notable, nor someone who was the lead in an indie title that has no coverage anywhere. But that's not what we're dealing with here. Three sources about their performance hit the SIGCOV bar--which isn't what's important anyway for an entertainer. So far, there's been no direct response beyond "eh, not enough," with no real argument or analysis. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::And I could argue the same about your disregard of WP:SIGCOV: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. You say it isn't important, but it really is. As for WP:ENT, it's debatable whether Shinji *and* Sho is enough to establish notability. The rest of the characters you've listed seem to be mere secondary characters. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability guideline says squarely it can either fulfill the general criteria, or the more specific laid out for individual categories. I struggle to see how a voice actor covered by Vice, TV Guide, Slate, and Crunchyroll, who's had at least three major roles, doesn't meet WP:ENT. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notability and siginificance of these other roles are up for debate. We'll soon see if your claims are truly founded with the other users. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Roem: - Why didn't you just take this to WP:DRV rather than undo a deletion discussion closed by consensus? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth noting that the Forbes article is contributor article and thus is unreliable per WP:RSP.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AFD just closed for this, and somehow its back again. If there was a problem why not just reopen and relist the previous AFD? The person clearly meets the subject specific guideline for voice actors. Dream Focus 03:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Makes no sense to relist the previous AFD if it had been already closed. I'm a bit annoyed that I had to start up a new AFD just because another admin decided to undelete the page and stuff it with pretty much the same sources, and defines it as "notable"...... We'll see how this goes. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have WP:DRV for these things, restoring a page that was deleted per consensus can be considered disruptive as the undoing is controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete This seems to be a repeat of the last AFD that had basically decided delete, there also seems to be very little additional work that really adds to the article. Many of these sources are piecemeal, small mentions, and virtually no coverage among the anime reliable sources. Almost no major roles aside from Shinji. There is a little bit of WP:TOOSOON here. Esw01407 (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No major roles outside of Shinji? I've discussed this more in depth above, but there's the major secondary role in Mob Psycho, B the Beginning, among others. It's very rare for a voice actor to be covered at all, but the present subject has 3 articles appraising their performance. That's significant coverage and significant roles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many many minor roles don't make an actor notable. Vox and Forbs pieces are one line statements virtually, with the Forbes one being much better if it had to be used. IF there was something from Anime News Network or better in the anime community, it would add more weight to the sources argument. The TV Guide piece I can't even place weight on, I'd have to look further into the writers work. Esw01407 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but these aren't minor roles, and I think it'd be bizarre to say you have to be the lead for it to be notable, and that's by no means supported by the terms of WP:ENT. Sho Suzuki from Mob Psycho, the role in B the Beginning, the role in Gundam SEED are all there. These aren't bit parts. Edit: Here's an article from Anime News Network on the Gundam dub, if you want an ANN source. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::::The Seed redub isn't even out yet. It's hard to determine how notable it'll be. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly a bit puzzled at your fervent desire to delete this article... but I also don't see that as persuasive. If an actor was announced in a major title, say, Dragon Ball Z, or a Pokemon title, that's clearly notable. The question isn't "will the voice actor get covered when the game comes out," but rather, "is the role itself notable" under the terms of ENT. Gundam, like Evangelion and Mob Psycho, is clearly a major series. Edit: Plus, it has been covered already, see the ANN source in my note above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Says the one that restored the article with barely any improvements...... I'd leave the article alone if there were major improvements. But that's not what I am seeing here. And it would appear that your perspective on WP:ENT and WP:SIGCOV isn't shared by some of the other users here. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Striking because I don't want to be part of this -- not because this shouldn't be deleted. - oh come on now. we were just here and nothing has changed (so per what I wrote there, etc., and upgrading from weak delete to delete because we shouldn't be here). Assuming the previous AfD result is still in effect, this should qualify for CSD or else go to DRV. If the "but I don't agree / I wanted to !vote" argument on the closer's talk page were successful, that should've resulted in a different close, not just throwing that AfD, and the time which went into it, out the window. Passing WP:ENT as that guideline says, indicates someone may be notable, but "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Major roles often results in significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, but it's not a guarantee, nor is it a substitute for them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the Vice, Forbes, and TV Guide sources which--rather uniquely for a dub performance--discuss the specifics of this subject's role. These are all reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the Forbes piece is a "contributor" article (RSP entry): like HuffPo, Forbes hosts user-generated content with minimal editorial oversight through their "contributor" blogging platform, in addition to their generally higher quality articles by paid staff writers. Cheers, gnu57 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the same about them as I did a couple weeks ago. There are no new sources here. There's one that's pretty good (Vice), one with a single paragraph (TV Guide), and brief mentions. I don't plan to participate in this AfD further. "hey, you closed as delete. I want to say the same thing the other keep !voters said, based on the same sources covered in the AfD" should not result in "ok, let's pretend that the AfD that just happened, suffered canvassing, and still ended in delete, doesn't exist and make everyone do it over again so you can participate this time". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is WP:TENDENTIOUS and seems to target voice actor's for deletion. In any event this voice actor passes the subject specific guidelines. Actors are known for their work, not their ability to generate press for DUIs and nonsense the article has RSs. The subject must pass either SNG or GNG. I would caution the nominator against this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Saying I'm ready for Round 2. Sounds like a prize fight. This should be a dispassionate discussion. In addition the nominator is known for repeatedly placing AfDs on the same article until they get a delete result. The nom even kept a hit list bragging about deletions (one took four AfDs). WP:DISRUPTIVE In any event this is a keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::K. Linking a list I made in 2017 proves what, exactly? You seem to dislike my AFDs (and me) a lot. Why do you keep participating in them, then? Can't be good for your health, I'd imagine. Plenty of editors nom VA articles for deletion. And that's bad, because...? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note An off-wiki discussion of these AFDs can be found (Redacted). -- Norvy (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Between that and what I read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive and the rest, I think this is just one editor obsessed with deleting all voice actor articles no matter what it takes. Dream Focus 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons stated above, concurrent with User:Lightburst’s assessment of WP:TENDENTIOUS, and because the nominator (Redacted) and as such is violating WP:NPV, thus making this whole farce a vandalistic act by way of WP:VAND, in that this is clearly a deliberate action against the subject and the project of the wiki through biases held by the nominator. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT - The mentions as decided by a prior consensus "are all either drive-by mentions, self-published blogs with no editorial oversight or the subject's own websites". The nominator's stance on the matter isn't going to bring the subject notability here based on the arguments presented at the last AfD. I would have added for speedy deletion under WP:G4. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding speedy deletion, Roem took it up with Eumerus (the deleting admin) to get it back up, and Eumerus approved. The person who requested the Speedy Deletion was the nominator, very quickly after the page’s admin-approved recreation. I’d just like to note that Eumerus stated “someone else” in regards to seeing if it’d get AFD’d, and this is the same person who AFD’d it the first time. Sure, the nominator’s stance isn’t going to change notability. But the nominator’s stance should be taken into account in regards to why this discussion’s even happening in the first place. Simply put, VA favoritism and vitriolic transphobia do not a proper reason to delete make. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but WP:BLP policy is strictly followed here on Wikipedia. A poorly sourced BLP helps nobody and can actually be considered damaging in some cases. What bothers me is how a prior consensus was disregarded by two editors rather than taken to a proper venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT and roles mentioned many times above. Rab V (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rab V, what is the second major role for Mongillo, and the sources to back this up? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see several sources talking about the character from Mob Psycho, here are some examples. Rab V (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and send to DRV proper what's the point in having a consensus to delete, followed by a lack of deleting the article, and then no proper WP:DRV review to reverse it? And then a supposed CSD that gets declined isn't even logged? Nothing has changed in the status of this article besides WP:CANVASSING from other voice actors on Twitter. No NEW news articles have been presented to add to the notability of the actor, and no new major roles have been added to help the notability of the actor. So how is this person going to meet WP:ENT besides that they are shouted about in social media? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over Casey's roles again:
  • Evangelion, yes, definitely major, RS
  • Mob Psycho 100: maybe secondary, maybe supporting, but not covered in any notable news articles, only passing mention
  • B The Beginning, Kirisame is an episodic character, not listed in main
  • Miraculous Ladybug, not in starring voice cast, guest spots only
  • Octopath Traveler, not shown how Casey has a major role there.
  • Red Dead Redemption, not shown how Casey has a major role there.
I'm looking for anything similar to Evangelion in coverage but for that second role, then this can be revisited. But otherwise Casey's WP:TOOSOON n roles and not enough to meet WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a CSD G4 which was declined / contested, so now this can proceed as an AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as WP:TRAINWRECK or WP:CLUSTERF**K, pardon my language. No one wants to follow procedures here. Recommend leaving a tag for notability in the meantime until issues can be cleared up. Person is borderline notable with second titles and references towards WP:ENT being possible, but not in its current state. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an update to this, Mob Psycho 100 season 1 dated 2016, Casey is not listed as voicing a main character [1] [2] [3] Are there articles for season 2 dated 2019 that show otherwise? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This article from Crunchyroll includes Casey's character as one of the leads who are participating in a Q&A about the dub. Obviously, Crunchyroll produced the dub, so I wouldn't say this is an incredibly strong source, but as for whether their role in Mob Psycho is significant, I think this points to yes. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comicbook.com does not list Casey as Sho in the season 2 cast listing posted April 2019. [4] According to the Japanese anime website, it appears that Sho Suzuki (鈴木将) was listed among the 17 characters in season 2. [5] The wayback for the season 1 anime official website in 2016 does not list Sho there. [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Firstly, I will break down the sources in terms of established notability. A significant portion of the sources provided are from social media sites like Twitter and Instagram and thus these parts establish zero notability (or reliability for that matter). Also the Linkedin source provides zero notability. The Forbes article provides some small coverage but is a contributor article and hence is unreliable per WP:RSP, The Vox article is a one sentence mention, The Slate article is a mention, The TV guide article is a small paragraph, The Vice article has a decent portion establishing some notability, The Huffpost article also has a decent portion but it is by Huffpost contributor and hence is deemed as an unreliable source per WP:RSP. The Polygon article has a tiny mention of the person's name. The rest of the sources provided are either social media sites or other unreliable sources which establish no notability. Hence fails to satisify WP:GNG.
Secondly, the article fails WP:ENT as demonstrated superbly by AngusWOOF's explanation:
Looking over Casey's roles again: Evangelion, yes, definitely major, RS; Mob Psycho 100: maybe secondary, maybe supporting, but not covered in any notable news articles, only passing mention; B The Beginning, Kirisame is an episodic character, not listed in main; Miraculous Ladybug, not in starring voice cast, guest spots only;Octopath Traveler, not shown how Casey has a major role there;Red Dead Redemption, not shown how Casey has a major role there.
Thus Casey Mongillo does not have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and does clearly fails WP:ENT.
Finally, the plethora of unreliable sources used throughout this article like Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Huffpost contributor, Forbes contributor violates WP:BLP as it is a biography on a living person and must be verifable and well sourced as seen WP:BLPRS.
Since this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT and violates WP:BLPRS Mongillo does not warrant a dedicated article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment (in relation to my !vote) If you still disagree about whether Mongillo has "significant roles" per WP:ENT (as there is some discussion about what is meant by significant roles) it is worth noting that if Mongillo has had signficant roles Mongillo would have significant coverage from reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV) which Mongillo clearly does not to have as per my explanation above (which was pointed out by Yosemiter)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict)x3 Struck my delete !vote above. I want no part of this. I stand by everything I've said thus far about this article and the process that led to its recreation, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help carry out some kind of transphobic grudge. I don't know what of the above links should be removed for outing, but I've sent some information to arbcom. Given how problematic this is either on the outing level or concerning the content of the links, I think this is best handled by them (as long as they can do so in a timely manner). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully there are editors here acting in good faith through the sources in the article being discussed. Passing mentions no matter who the person is does not pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't disagreed with that. I said "I stand by everything I've said thus far about this article and the process that led to its recreation." I'm just not willing to participate. If that means we keep a little-bit-short-of-notable biography, I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with calling off this second AfD and letting the first result stand, as it should have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: Thanks for your comments. Unsalted articles are recreated all the time. Sometimes there is new information, sometimes there is a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. However I will agree with you I was surprised to see another AfD so quickly. WP:NOTAGAIN Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see a local consensus here as no new sources were added that aren't passing mentions. A lot of the Keep opinions here are going after the nominator rather than discussing the weight of the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any local consensus. There are editors who have jumped on after the previous AFD resulted in a close to try to defend keeping the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point is: Unsalted articles can be recreated. The only disruption I see is the nominator who has been topic banned once and indeffed once for socking, and was just at ANI last week (warned about tendentious behavior). Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me I am familiar with it. The page was recreated and an administrator allowed it. It does not seem like a federal case to me. After all a nominator can repeatedly nominate for deletion, so recreating an article seems innocuous enough.So here we are. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is an issue as it was done out of process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's been filed many times. I apologize for throwing in the extra one from today (4 November 2019). Hopefully, my reorg of those threads on the talk page, as well as the oldcsd post, helps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no question that Mongillo exists and is a working actor, but I can't find how there is significant coverage of them to sustain an article. The only really strong source is the Vice article. Most of the rest of the article's sources are references to social media pages (Instagram and Twitter for the most part) and not third party primary sources. The other non-social media sources are really just ancillary mentions of the actor in articles that are really about other things (e.g. their main role in Evangelion). I think a lot of the arguments for keep have some merit, but I can't get over the SIGCOV hurdle. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/38.142.216.106 FWIW, this new account is essentially a WP:SPA. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: How so? IPs shift all the time, and in the last few weeks that IP has made edits to a wide range of areas on the encyclopedia. No reason to assume it was canvassed somewhere else to come to this AFD. Unlike, say, this account that has made a total of 30 edits over several years, and in the last few days reemerged to attack Sk8erPrince on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it looks pretty desperate when a half-dozen SPAs have shown up and either !voted "keep" or harassed one or more "delete" !voters (truth be told I didn't read them before they were revdelled, so I don't know), and then for two of the non-SPA "keep" !voters to tag an IP that is neither single-purpose nor an account as an SPA. There's no need to be "fair and balanced" in our SPA-tagging to the point where we have to go looking for "delete" !voters that, if we squint and try really hard, kinda-sorta look like SPAs. In all seriousness, though, the problem is not so much that it looks desperate as that it's guilty parties trying to place the blame for the disruption on the other "side" -- WP:KETTLE and possible WP:IDHT are serious issues here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From reading the above:
1. Spy-cicle is closest to the full "schoolbook solution" here - only one real RS that comes close to full WP:BLPRS WP:SIGCOV, which is from Vice; no other RS comes close to this level, and it is borderline as to whether the BLP has been in significant roles in multiple notable films, per WP:ENT (plus WP:ENT is not in itself sufficient).
2. WP:BASIC says that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability; so Vice plus the other refs could, but not would, be construed to add up to a notability.
3. Jo-Jo Eumerus is a precise and skilled admin XFD closer, who, as per the 1st AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo, is not afraid to ignore all !votes that are not themselves precise in their policy-based arguments, however, their release of the AfD outside of DRV to Lord Roem – which is permitted – shows that there was still a case to be argued here.
Ultimately, there still is a borderline element to all three of the above points, and the subject's "big break", Neon Genesis Evangelion, is a 2019 event, with a strong hint from Vice and other RS that this was a meaningful event in the community this BLP represents. Thus, unless Jo-Jo Eumerus believes their original decision stands, I believe a fair outcome is no consensus – let this BLP sit for another 12 months and see what happens in their rapidly developing career. No harm will come to WP, or our readers, in the meantime. Britishfinance (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Jo-Jo Eumerus has said on the related ANI case to this AfD, that they will NOT be closing this 2nd AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do agree that a closure for the first AfD of "No Consensus" would've made more sense. Based on the discussion above, there's clearly a very significant divide on the issue, but certainly no consensus to delete, with a solid argument for why it should be kept.
I think, fundamentally, my concern has always been that voice actors as a segment of entertainment rarely ever get coverage, so we're unduly setting the bar high, if the requirement is there be a news article about *every single role* for it to be included. Casey, rather uniquely, has major coverage about their performance. No other voice actor has such coverage, which is why I'm genuinely disappointed to see that context missing from folks' consideration-- i.e., that the coverage Casey has is notable in and of itself. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem, the "rarely ever get coverage" was the situation years ago, but voice actors now do and are expected to get significant coverage in sources, including ones outside the anime industry. The bar is set to be the same as any other live-action actor, which means more than just passing mention in credits, cast announcements, and self-published tweets/conventions. Once the person is notable, THEN they can have primary source credits added to their filmographies, provided the primaries don't overwhelm the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my confusion comes from the reading of ENT, which suggests it's not the sourcing, it's the roles, as in, if Casey is cast as the lead villain in, say, Demon Slayer, whether or not there's a review out there about their performance, wouldn't that be a substantial role in a major production? Or, are you saying, for it to 'count,' it not only has to be a key role, but there must be an article mentioning them by name, and discussing their performance? If the latter, that's the part I'm having difficulty with. I totally get VAs today do get more press than two decades ago, but how often are their performances appraised like the Vice article? Usually, it's a brief mention, and often about the ensemble together, with only a single line or two about them, like this ANN review that mentioned the lead with two sentences. This leads to a weird outcome, where a voice actor who got coverage about their performance in one of the largest anime titles of all time still doesn't hit the bar. I hope you can at least empathize with my concern here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem, that's why I was asking about Mob Psycho 100 season 2, since season 1, the character of Shou is not listed at all among the 5-10 main characters that they bothered to have cast announcements for. If Demon Slayer lists Casey's role among that main cast in such a comparable list, then yes, consider. Also keep in mind, Casey is taking over a well-known character role; and the press coverage is much like how Erica Lindbeck took over Kelly Sheridan's role as the voice of Barbie (of which Lindbeck had a bunch of mainstream news and magazine articles about the change, although for Barbie's case it will be for a number of years and not just a single series), or how the Sailor Moon voice actors changed over recasting. With more mainstream media coverage, perhaps Casey will meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E instead of WP:ENT, and the point becomes moot over discussing the latter? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point. Would not this cast announcement for the Gundum dub, the Mob Psycho S2 Q&A announcement, and NGE stand as three major roles? Even if Mob Psycho is discounted because the announcement is more implicit (i.e., it's saying "here are folks doing the Q&A" instead of the S2 cast), why isn't two roles enough? Just for my own understanding, how many do you believe are required under ENT to hit that bar? Three roles? Four roles? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD, "multiple" = 2 (I used to have a link to a major AfD case re this, but I just can't find it; perhaps someone can supply). Britishfinance (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least by my understanding and other AFD's, WP:ENT is the "last resort" for getting/having an entertainer on Wiki, and even then they would have to have many major roles, but somehow have had no major press. Best example I could give would be if somehow Todd Haberkorn in the Anime voice acting community didn't have sources. Esw01407 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, try these essays WP:3REFS which asks how many minimum is good enough for multiple, and WP:THREE when you have to decide among listings of tens of sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AngusWOOF, I am aware of the 3REFS essay (which itself recognizes two may suffice), however, I have seen editors paste in an essay on why, regardless of 3REFS, two is the technical hurdle (it was in response to editors invoking 3REFs). Obviously, all of these are just guidelines, and consensus/WP:COMMONSENSE re RS will usually prevail, but now I have remembered it, I would love to find it again :(. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Multiple sources is an essay written by a single user. Not sure why its in main space. I have edited it to have the proper tag at the top. You only need two, that's how its always been, why some keep pointing to essays someone tossed up and claiming its three I have no idea. We go by the Notability guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY not personal essays. Dream Focus 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For non-essays see WP:ONESOURCE and WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ONESOURCE clearly states at the top its just an essay. That's three different personal essays people made just to try to convince people to ignore the guidelines and do things their way. We go by WP:NOTABILITY which states an article is notable if it meets the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines. Dream Focus 16:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, let's just get back to WP:BASIC then, whch ISN'T an essay. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" I'm gonna add that WP:ENT is grouped under the Additional criteria which states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Potential procedural issues aside, the Vice article and TV Guide Review seems to collectively meet WP:GNG. The latter is more of a borderline case for being significant coverage, but a 5-sentence paragraph dedicated solely to review the subject's performance seems significant enough for the criterion of "addresses the topic directly and in detail". — MarkH21 (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject discussed in detail in at least two of the independent sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator unnecessarily attacks a user, for recreating the article, despite that was the advice and direction of the Admin who closed the previous AFD. A little unusual, but that is the closing Admin's perogrative, and shouldn't be relevant to this AFD process. There are (at least) two GNG references that several have noted - so keep. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, take it to DRV All the disruption by editors (and possible off-wiki commentators and.or impersonators) on one or another "side" of this dispute, the original undeletion, whereby an admin who has now cast a keep !vote in this second discussion went to the talk page of the closing admin and got them to say that a "no consensus -- default to keep" result might not have been entirely inappropriate, then undeleted the page themselves, is a procedural nightmare and sets a dangerous precedent. The fact that some editors who !voted in the previous discussion and were overruled by the close are now arguing that the default state is "keep" and that Sk8erPrince is behaving disruptively by "repeatedly nominating the same article against consensus", and that at least one of the above keep !votes came here from ANI after disputing with the nominator on an unrelated issue, is evidence enough that this discussion has been tainted by bad faith and should be allowed go through the normal procedures rather than allowing editors with a particular viewpoint to distort the discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to procedural speedy delete. Much of my involvement in this discussion and the related ANI thread was motivated by what appeared to me to be a joe-job and harassment campaign directed against the AFD nominator, who appeared to be acting in good-faith, and certainly on-wiki received a lot of "this person nominated an article for deletion -- therefore he is wrong all the time" backlash before the page was undeleted. However, said user has since been indeffed by ArbCom. Without speculating in public as to the reason for this, I can only assume I have been hoodwinked into defending someone who did not deserved my defense or even good will. Egg on my face, I guess. That being said, there are hundreds of possible reasons he could have been blocked, and only one (he was a sock of someone who was site-banned before the initial AFD) would be a valid reason for not re-deleting this page and forcing it to go through the normal procedures, in my opinion. So please consider all my advocacy of Sk8erPrince to be retracted, but until proven otherwise I think there is no reason to make an exception to our normal procedures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be a procedural speedy keep, with no prejudice against a 3rd AFD, given that the nominator was banned for off-Site comments, after other users raised concerns about off-Site comments against the subject of this article? Nfitz (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, the page was previously deleted per community consensus. The default state is delete pending consensus to do otherwise. The fact that the original AFD nominator was blocked almost three weeks later does nothing to change that. Also, please refrain from speculating as to why the editor was banned; ArbCom has spoken, and until they choose to say more you and I really shouldn't be talking about "off-Site comments". The only off-site comments that would be relevant when it comes to whether to invalidate the previous AFD result would be canvassing, and the only canvassing seems to have been for "keep" !votes, given that all the SPAs seemed to be !voting that way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the collective community time, and !votes, on this 2nd AfD, regardless of the motivation of the nom, we should complete it properly? (and I still believe that it is a No Consensus AfD, with a leaning emerging bias to Keep, imho) Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Please stop interrogating me. I've already made clear that I've said my piece and am now washing my hands of this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) For the love of god, stop editing your comment! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it was the Admin who closed the previous AFD, who suggested recreating it, with no prejudice against another AFD, surely the default state is keep, not delete! Nfitz (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hijiri88 - I concur with your suggestion. This whole thing was messier than it needed to be, and I think the admin who eventually closes this will have a lot to untangle. In the end, I suspect that whatever decision is reached will be challenged by someone or another. Setting aside the drama about the nominator, there seems to be a genuinely complex dispute about how to apply the notability guidelines for voice actors. As I said earlier (before I was accused of being a SPA), there seems to be a compelling argument that the coverage of Mongillo's role in Evangelion is significant enough to qualify under GNG, even though - like a lot of VAs - there aren't that many other reliable articles about Mongillo outside of this. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point coming out of this, there might have be a wider discussion about voice actors notability. One of my issues is with how WP:ENT is being applied here, I've never seen it used this way on a rather unknown voice actor. Esw01407 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commented on this both at ANI and on my talk page, but it's probably best to let this run at this juncture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet, if barely, the established standards for voice actors in WP:ENT. Parabolist (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the last AfD, I dithered, because Mongillo seems like they're on the edge of notability. I'm still dithering. I ultimately voted "merge" last time, but currently I'd like to be considered neutral. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable with how often the article currently cites its subject (whose twitter is cited nine times, and whose website and linkedin are also cited, with other citations going to Facebook and Instagram), but that is a cleanup issue, since discounting those cites still leaves several good sources, including the TV Guide article (a good source according to WP:RSPS) and the Vice article, both regarding Evangelion, and the dedicated HuffPost interview dealing with Red Dead Redemption; there is also the coverage of the Mob Psycho 100 work in Crunchyroll (a marginal source which I found only one short, years-old RSN discussion of). (The mentions in Vox and Slate are probably too brief to contribute much towards establishing notability.) It's a weak keep, in my view. -sche (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-sche, self-published Tweets and social media for announcing voice roles are pretty typical for voice actors these days. Yes, I would ignore all of those for purposes of evaluating notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I'm aware of, Spy-cicle is the one who outlined the significance of the subject's roles the most accurately. Simply having reliable sources does not accredit you for holding notability. Is the Mob Psycho 100 role a significant one or no? If not, then the article could have a thousand sources but still only one significant role in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Utopes (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, it's borderline. Shou was one of 7 characters added to the character listing (was about 10 characters in season 1, now 17 as of season 2) of the anime. That Shou wasn't mentioned on the Comicbook.com cast for season 2 implies minor, but they did have a Reddit event where Casey was one of the featured panelists, so maybe major. The show itself Mob Psycho 100 anime English version is significant since it broadcast on Adult Swim as opposed to just going straight-to-video / subscription stream as with other anime shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Idk how valid using Wikipedia articles as a source in wiki-related discussion is, but on the MP100 Wikipedia page, Shou is listed as a main character. No idea how much merit that has here, but reading up on the material in question is prolly useful, i guess. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would argue that since WP:ENT does not supersede WP:GNG, then "significant roles" would imply roles in which the actor garnered independent significant coverage. From what most people are listing as significant coverage in this AfD seems to be only about one role, which would seemingly no pass WP:SUSTAINED. I don't have a strong opinion here, but unless there is sigcov of another role, that seems against the intent of ENT (which is meant to be a presumption of meeting GNG if met). With the amount of back-and-forth here on "what is a significant role", it seems falling back on GNG is the most logical solution as opposed to the vagueness of ENT. Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not going to !vote on this as I have little experience with anime dubs and voice actors, but I initially commented because the !votes are concerning around the subject of GNG. There also appears to be tendentious editing from both sides with various non-GNG related personal conflicts between editors, possible off-site canvassing, and accusations of dubious intentions.

      From what I see, the current summary is:

      1. Previously deleted via lack of support for GNG sources provided by keep voters. It seems many of the more significant depth sources were from non-RS contributor-written pieces, but most agreed the Vice article was good.

      2. Article properly recreate within weeks, but probably should have gone to DRV based on the contentious nature of the previous AfD in order to get a broader consent to change the closure to a no consensus. If the review had overturned the previous close, that would have saved an arbcom and several ANI discussions.

      3. At least 4 keep votes here are primarily aimed against the nominator and not about the article (but at least of two those editors also voted Keep in the first AfD, so it was probably just an expansion from their previous comments).

      4. At least 4 or 5 keep votes at least mention GNG, seemingly resting solely on the Vice and TV Guide articles. Both articles are about a single role, written within weeks of the dubbed show's release (see WP:SUSTAINED).

      5. At least 2 Keep votes solely on their interpretation of ENT. This should never supersede or act as a replacement for failing GNG.

      So based on the sources provided (really only the Vice and TV Guide article), I would argue weak delete as WP:TOOSOON or redirect to their one agreed upon notable role. The lack of sustained coverage has not put this subject past the light threshold of WP:ONEEVENT and we should not keep the article just because the actor is on the rise and might get more sources in the future. However, if this VA garners more attention for either for on-going coverage of the main notable role they have portrayed or for a new role they get, then I would have absolutely have no objection to re-creation of the article. Yosemiter (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • WP:NOTABILITY clearly states something is notable if it meets the GNG or a subject specific guideline, it doesn't have to do both. WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly met. And an administrator restored the article after talking to the administrator that deleted it. That's mentioned with a link to the talk page it happened at somewhere in the text above. Dream Focus 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Dream Focus: I am well aware of all of that, hence my analysis (see #2 for my comments of the restoration). But you do need to review WP:ENT as a SNG, it is a sub-section of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which explicitly states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." While not all SNGs are subject to GNG (usually due to age of topics and difficulty in finding coverage), all sections of WP:BIO are subject to GNG per WP:BASIC. The fact that everyone here cannot even agree what a "significant role" even is in this case, is enough to say that ENT is insufficient here. So if ENT is inconclusive, go to GNG. My !vote was based off GNG. So unless you want to discuss significant coverage in RS sources, I have no further comment. Yosemiter (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Yosemiter: The subject’s RS sigcov is about one work, not one event, so WP:BLP1E does not really apply. There is also no requirement for sustained coverage per WP:NTEMP: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage (and WP:SUSTAINED only says sustained coverage may be an indicator). If the Vice and TV Guide articles (or any others) count as RS sigcov, then that should be enough regardless if they are about the same role. Otherwise, I agree with the preceding summary and GNG & ENT being independently sufficient. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @MarkH21: I am not solely judging based of BLP1E or BIO1E, just how it explains short-term-vs. long-term significance (similar to the thought experiment in WP:10YEARTEST). And just like any other guideline, SUSTAINED is just a generalization, not an automatic pass/fail. As all notability guidelines are just that, guidelines, they are inherently open to interpretation and subjectivity. I see one thorough article and one paragraph about one role in a short period of time and not much further in RS. If one other role had a few paragraphs in RS, or another RS comes back on the same role to show lasting significance, then I would switch to weak keep. But, that is not what I am seeing right now from the sources provided. I have no qualms if another editor sees those two sources differently than I do. Yosemiter (talk) 22:28, 10 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casey_Mongillo_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=925590907"