Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tate

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tate[edit]

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

Contested PROD. "WP:N, WP:V. While Ms. Tate's voice work certainly is present in a number of credits, there's no reliable independent sources that I can find that provide more than a byline (Searches via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks)."

(If you can find appropriate WP:RS to verify and establish notability for this voice actress, of course those of us at the BLP Rescue Squad would appreciate your help! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per verifiable career meeting WP:ENT.[1] Commonness of name will make expansion and sourcing difficult, but do we toss because it may take a little work? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I agree with you (as nom) that "need to do work" is not (and should not be) a deletion criteria. Second, it's my understanding that IMDB is not generally considered a WP:RS because of the inclusion of unverified data, although I don't believe this is entirely unanimously accepted at WP:RSN, you'll have no trouble finding discussions [2] on that point. So, while I was the editor who added IMDB to the external links section, based on concerns about the reliability of IMDB as a source I wasn't willing to use it to establish verifiability (nor of course does it go towards notability.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The individual's career can be verified through the works themselves. But yes, being listed in the IMDB does not confer notability. This individual has such a common name that online searches give many false positives. Digging through them all will take a great deal of time and effort. I'll see what I might do to assist later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I'm travelling (responding from Chicago Midway airport), or I'd revisit this, I did spend a fair bit of time looking, but as I tried to indicate, if an article can be reliably sourced, I'm thrilled to save it. Cheers! --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for using IMDB as a source for uncontroversial info, but it can never be the only source for an article, especially not a BLP. With no other coverage I can't see how this is going to meet the notability guidelines, although I'll happily change my !vote if someone finds something useful. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 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.