Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Liebling

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 so kept by default. Yomangani ^talk 15:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Liebling[edit]

This AfD request for Debbie Liebling is due to a combination of lack of notability; possible commercial insertion (see the earlier version before a speedy-deletion tag was placed on it, which was very WP:PEACOCK, and the other edits by the editors and creators of the page); and lack of useful encyclopedic information (though of course, if that exists, it could be added). jesup 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand it qualifies as a stub at the moment. Danny Lilithborne 18:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the policy we usually adopt toward the officers of corporations? With an organization like News Corporation, executive veep sounds impressive and notable, but I'm sure it's still a big step down from Murdoch. Can anybody link me to any other articles for comparison, or provide links to news outlets discussing Liebling? -bobby 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain there's enough info out there to be worthy of expansion, which was part of the question. The wikipedia page already seems to have as much info on her as you can find in all the references on the first several pages of google -- basically, that she's an executive VP, and that she's listed as coproducer on a couple of movies. Oh, and she was quoted talking about BattleBots to some press outlet. jesup 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of a VP/EVP varies a lot by industry (and company). In banks, sometimes it seems that everyone who isn't a teller is a VP of some sort. :-) jesup 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For entertainment companies, while VP is a title that's thrown about just for prestige incentives, Executive VP is very high up and pretty much answers directly to company Presidents. --Oakshade 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough. Thanks to Jesup for clarifying. -bobby 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. If verifiable. Obviously notable enough if she was the one who greenlighted South Park. Un focused 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see why "greenlighting southpark" makes one notable in and of itself. Does the bean-counter who gave South Park the ok 'deserve' a bio page? The key grip? Everyone who appears in the credits of every episode? Every executive at the company? Sure, greenlighting South Park is a counter towards notability, but I don't see it as a full payment. jesup 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a simple difference of opinion. I favor verifiable fact as the primary criteria and notability is secondary or less. Notability is inherent in the verifiability of the topic, and I don't see any particular problem if the bean counters, key grip, or any other credited staff have articles here, as long as they're researched and documented properly with references cited. I'm not concerned at all with impressing the "Random Page" surfers, nor do I care if a topic is "too dry" or "too boring". However, this person's influence in a major media corporation has far more impact on society than almost any published musical artists who have sold the roughly 5000 copies of their work that is "notable enough" in that field. Definite keep if verifiable. Un focused 18:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, though I think your take on this heads towards a collision with 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Even more directly, which of the entries in Wikipedia:Notability (people) does this article fit? Also, does it pass the expandability test? (Can it be expanded past a stub.) The subject doesn't pass "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)" IMO. jesup 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the following carefully:

This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious).

And:

This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

In other words, she passes all Wikipedia's formal policies even though her situation is not addressed by the guideline. And that's just a guideline, which is why I feel free to ignore it in cases like this, where notability not anticipated by the guideline authors is clearly evident. Un focused 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject itself appears to be notable, but the article needs much work. Yamaguchi先生 19:37, 1 November 2006
Delete She is not important enough to appear on any of the various fox web sites such as fox.com foxstudios.com foxinternational.com foxmovies.com foxhome.com fox.co.uk etc. Although she was mentioned at least once in Variety. Bejnar 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should be obvious since I AfD'd it, but just in case: I say that there's not enough notable, and there's not enough for it to be expanded past a stub, and therefore should be deleted unless and until that changes. jesup 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being an executive in a major corporation is not necessarily notable. Also a procedural comment: There wasn't an AfD template on the page, but I went ahead and added one. Jesup, in the future, you probably want to start with that. Place {{subst:afd}} at the top of the page, rather than just listing it at the main AfD list. --Elonka 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so many templates, I got confused. I had indicated in the talk/comments that I would be listing it as afd (I'd originally marked it for speedy deletion, and instead of edit-warring over that I took the advice to list it for regular deletion instead.) Thanks. jesup 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Executive occupying an important position, but not notable, and notabilty not properly asserted. Ohconfucius 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs work but this is a very powerful person in Hollywood. If you watch Fox (or Sky for the rest of the world) or Comedy Central, you have watched shows that were aired due to decisions this person made. --Oakshade 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this person is that notable (as opposed to powerful), there should be more WP:RS and more content. Is there enough encyclopedic content for it to be expanded past a stub? jesup 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Daily Variety I've found 38 articles that cite Leibling's importance (remember to search under "Deborah Leibling" as well as "Debbie Leibling") [1][2] and in the Hollywood Reporter, 47 articles [3][4]. A couple of these articles have been inserted into the WP article. Those alone are two VERY RS. Plus I've found she's been nominated for an Emmy 3 times. --Oakshade 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that nominations were general SouthPark episode nominations, not individual - all people working on it and executives involved are included. The articles inserted were basically "she left Comedy Central". Those publications are RS, but mention there doesn't mean notability per se. And those are trade mags that report on "so-and-so was made under-VP-in-training". More to the point, those searches basically show lots of "title, executive producer foo, writer bar, director xyzzy", etc. The only links not like that were "she left CC", and a single quote about SP. (In the Variety search). jesup 16:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and very important news sources read by almost everyone in the entertainment business and not in any way excluded from WP:RS. I actually agree that some of those articles are "mentions" of Liebling, so I inserted three articles that she is the "primary subject of" into the WP article. Very much passing WP:BIO. As for the Emmy nominations, if you don't feel an Executive Producer nomination is notable, that's your POV. --Oakshade 16:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, those are WP:RS, but being mentioned in them doesn't necessarily mean that the subject is notable. It depends on how they're mentioned. WP is an encyclopedia, but not a list of all facts, which is why Notability is important. Correct me if I'm wrong, but her nominations for emmy's weren't for her; the episode was nominated and she (along with all the other staff) were therefore considered nominees. Would you consider all group emmy nominees to be notable per se? I imagine not. So the question goes around again to what makes her notable. Also note that even searches at the trade pubs barely come up with any refs other than "she left CC and was involved in SouthPark, and was an executive at Fox" - so how will this article ever get beyond a stub? jesup 00:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when show gets nominated for an Emmy (it was the entire show, not just an episode), it's in fact the creative staff responsible for that show who is nominated. And I in fact do think that all the writers and producers nominated for an Emmy and responsible for and extremely popular show are notable. If you don't think that, that's okay as that's your POV. At least three articles (beyond what WP:BIO considers "multiple") demonstrate notability. If you don't think her being an important executive at 20th Century Fox is notable, again that's your POV. I guess this bears repeating, so here it goes Per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." --Oakshade 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Update ~~Two~~ ~~Three~~ Four references where this person is the primary subject of from very reliable independent sources have been added to the article confirming notability. Also some extra information was added - like she was nominated for an Emmy 3 times. --Oakshade 16:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Administrator - Unfortunately, a user is repeatedly removing an independent reliable reference/source from the article. This in violation of WP:POV and is highly inappropriate during an AfD as it could unduly influence editors opinions. --Oakshade 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade is referring to me; please see the Talk page and changelog for why I felt the reference was redundant (all viewable text part of the first citation). Citing that might be useful here in arguing over notability, though I'd say it doesn't help the argument, but there's no reason for the citation to remain in the article regardless of the results of the AfD. While the AfD is pending I'm monitoring the page and I think you'll see all my edits are reasonable and meant to improve the article (as much as is possible). WP:AGF please. jesup 01:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources establish reliability. JoshuaZ 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I didn't mention whether sources were reliable in calling this AfD (they weren't in the article) - the issues are notability and sufficient encyclopedic content (can it be expanded?). The sources are reliable - but they don't IMO establish notability. I have doubts about the recently uploaded picture by the original article author, in that they first uploaded it under a non-GFDL license, then uploaded a scaled-down version claiming original authorship. jesup 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really hung up on this "must grow beyond a stub" (could you please cite that WP:BIO clause, by the way?), then you've got a ton of Wikipedia deleting to do. Just to make it alphabetically and numerically easy, start with Arkansas Highway 2 (there is no Arkansas Highway 1) and move your way up the highway system. Okay, joke over. As for this "stub" issue, open up your real-life encyclopedia and you'll see thousands or articles that are no more than one paragraph... and all of those are "Encyclopedic". --Oakshade 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has clearly been greatly improved since the nomiation and references have been added. It seems to me that an "Executive Vice President of 20th Century Fox" is at least as important as many of the sportspeople added to Wikipedia every day. The systemic bias of Wikipedia seems to disfavour people in business, just as it disfavours academics. up+land 05:52, 6 November 2006 (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.