Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcia Ross

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. Numerically, this would be a clear delete, however, several delete !votes are weak, citing problems with the text, tone etc. as reasons for deletion (WP:UGLY). The core question is notability however and those !votes that argue about it are split whether this person is indeed notable with both sides making good points. So Why 09:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Ross

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

Extremely promotional, ref-bombed autobiography of a non-notable casting director and producer. The requirements of WP:GNG have not been met, and my searches turn up absolutely nothing that counts as "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources." A person does not inherit notability from the projects they work on, so mere involvement is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN individual, vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are some independant sources. Granted it should be rewrote, and some of the references are unreliable. Reb1981 (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reb1981: Can you point out the sources that meet the "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" requirement? All I've found are passing mentions, PR, and an industry award that has been given to around 1000 people. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per refs #7 and #32. Most of those other refs are obfuscating things. Being a VP at Warner Bros. and Disney plus an award is probably enough, and I assume more inferences to notability can be made, but this article is in need of some serious cleanup. South Nashua (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: Come on now, those are both PR references. They're not independent and therefore don't count at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: and I can't believe one independent source somewhere didn't pick up something from those press releases and didn't use them as part of something. If an expert on this subject can't clean it up in a few weeks, that's one thing, but how it looks now, this article can be fixed if some time is put into it. AFD is not cleanup. South Nashua (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons are held to a high level of sourcing. If the sources do not meet the GNG then the article must be deleted. Have a read through WP:BLP and WP:GNG - there's simply no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this person. Stick to policy - BLP articles are one area where Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to keep articles because they think sources might exist somewhere. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. I'll give it a look. If I can't find anything, I'll remove my comment. Fair enough? South Nashua (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Took 30 seconds. Speaking of policy, you should check out WP:BEFORE. South Nashua (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing. The weak sources are still there and no GNG-ready sources have been provided. Take a step back, this isn't some sort of argument. If the subject met the GNG then I wouldn't have started this deletion discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion and I appreciate it, but I disagree with it as well. This article is a mess, but it can be fixed with enough time and effort. The seeds of that better article are already there. South Nashua (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV, not an encyclopedia article. Casting directors and / or documentary producers need to be truly remarkable to meet GNG / BIO; this is not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not overly impressed with the sourcing which I think does not ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - casting director for several major films. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too promotional to keep, would need a rewrite from scratch. No opinion about notability. Sandstein 09:03, 20 June 2017 (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.