Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra McCormick

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 June 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra McCormick[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. One source is IMDb, while the other is the Disney Channel. Lacking independence and reliability, neither can be used to establish notability. Subject lacks significant roles in television and films. Credits primarily encompass minor supporting roles. Article previously salted after six separate recreation/deletions. Was inadvertently created again during a move request. Cind.amuse 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just happen to have seen an episode of '5th grader' - she's notable, in my view. Jus da fax 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral It's borderline, but I think an argument could be made that she meets WP:ENT. The guideline says that an entertainer may be considered significant if she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She's certainly had a significant role in Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?. So that's one. If I'm reading the relevant pages correctly, she also played the daughter of the main character (which I gather was a series regular role) in the series Romantically Challenged, which I'm not familiar with personally, but it was apparently deemed notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. The same goes for upcoming series A.N.T. Farm, in which she's one of the series regulars. She also had a role in the movie Ramona and Beezus, but since her role doesn't seem to be mentioned in most reviews (and I haven't seen the movie) I'm not sure how significant it was—still, even without that, that's at least three notable series in which she definitely had significant roles, which, again, seems to make her qualify as notable under WP:ENT—again, it may be borderline, but I think there's enough to justify her inclusion. ----Smeazel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The role on 5th Grader was nominal or peripheral, rather than significant. Foxworthy's contribution over a course of three or so years would be considered significant, but certainly not one of the group of students in a supporting role. Romantically Challenged aired four times, before being cancelled. It is not clear whether or not McCormick appeared in any of the aired episodes, and even if she had, the role is not significant. The role in Ramona and Beezus was not significant either. At this point, we have a potential significant role in a forthcoming series. This does not establish notability, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. While she may have a career ahead of her, notability according to WP guidelines has not yet been established. Cind.amuse 08:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw on its page that Romantically Challenged aired only four times before being cancelled, but I don't see how that's relevant; it still apparently was a notable enough program for a Wikipedia page, and how many times the program aired has no bearing on the significance of her character within it. You say "the role is not significant"; on what are you basing that? The main character is described in the show as a "single mother"; I'd assume, if that's a defining trait of the character, then the character's daughter is likely to be a significant part of the show. (At least, I assume she's the main character's daughter, based on the fact that the characters have the same last names.) Still... on second thought, I can't find any sources stating that it is, and the burden of proof lies on the person trying to establish notability, so, OK, until and unless someone finds a source showing that the daughter is an important character, I'll accept that it isn't. That still leaves two shows, though, counting Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, and I'm not convinced her role in that was a "nominal or peripheral role". According to the IMDb, she was in 22 out of 55 episodes, and based on her appearance on the show was invited onto Entertainment Tonight and the Ellen DeGeneres show (along with the rest of the class, yes, but still).
    
    Hm. Still, I've never really seen that show, and I suppose I'm just guessing about how notable the students in it are. I'm not sufficiently convinced she's not notable to !vote Delete, but I guess I'm unsure enough I may as well withdraw my weak keep vote. If you're right and the students' roles in that program aren't significant, then I agree that one forthcoming series isn't enough to establish notability. (In the interests of full disclosure, I guess it's possible I was more inclined to !vote Keep in this particular AfD than I otherwise would have been because I've recently !voted a lot of Deletes and Merge/Redirects, and maybe didn't want to feel like I was turning into a deletionist...) Anyway, !vote withdrawn; I don't know enough about the shows in question to judge whether her parts in them are notable or not (though even if they are, it would still be only a borderline keep anyway). I'll leave the matter to people more familiar with the shows to judge. ----Smeazel (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I agree that whether or not a show has been cancelled has no bearing on notability. What is essential is that the significance of the subject's role cannot be established accordingly, as verified through reliable, independent sources. Sorry if my earlier message somehow implied differently, I was just trying to provide an understanding of the show. Cind.amuse 10:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. On a side note, this has been created NUMEROUS times, each time it has been deleted; if she was notable, she would not be deleted, and if she was, each time it was deleted wouldn't be for the same reason. Having being on "5th Grader" and other roles does not make a person notable.Curb Chain (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because the article has been created and deleted numerous times, makes the person non-notable? Maybe the past drafts of article were not done well which is why they were deleted in first place. I'm sure if the article was Wikified and properly referenced it wouldn't even be up for AFD at the moment. The actress has already co-starred in few notable films and has a regular role on a Disney Channel series (A.N.T. Farm), so even if this article were to be deleted because of this AFD, It will only be matter of time before it is re-created again due to her exposure on the aforementioned series. So I requesting that this article be Kept so it can be worked on. Quasy Boy 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To User:Curb Chain: I see no links to any other AFDs for this individual. So how can you state "NUMEROUS"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Reviewing the log reveals that this has been created and deleted six separate times, resulting in a good salting. This recent creation inadvertently bypassed the salt when created as Sierra mccormick, followed by a move request. Whoever made the move apparently did so unaware of the salt or deliberately disregarded the previous admin action. Cind.amuse 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So the earlier articles may have been WP:TOOSOON? This is not at all surprising for any young actor... and is not a concern with this current version, no matter how the earlier ones were written. Unles they quit the business, an actor's career moves forward, month by month, year by year, and they do more and more projects. And while some earlier version of this article may have failed at some earlier time for some unknown reason (could you link the old AFDs?) , there does come a time when TOO SOON becomes just SOON ENOUGH. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. The six previously deleted articles were no different from this one and were all created since December 2010 and salted in February 2011. Nothing has changed since then. Cind.amuse 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What has changed, as for any actor, is the individual completing more work in additional notable projects. Unless an actor dies or quits the business, their career does not sit still. So it is exceeding unlikely that an article showing recent projects would be the same as one created in 6 months ago when such information was unavailable.. just as A.N.T. Farm was "upcoming" when this discussion began as is now airing (yet another rle to meet ENT). Careers do not sit still. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Your assertion is not based in fact or logic. Careers do sit still and/or become stagnant. This happens in every labor market, occupation, and industry. (Especially in today's economy.) Careers in the entertainment industry are especially not immune to stagnation. Outside of death and retirement, an individual may audition for months and even years on end, without a role coming to fruition. Cind.amuse 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It takes no leap of logic to conclude that if an actor dies or retires, their active career ends. And while yes, there are other causes for a slowdown in an actor's career, this entire sidebar resulted from your assertion that "nothing has changed" in this actor's career, and my response that careers do not sit still. So let me modify... claim it has as you might, THIS actor's career has not sat still, so yes things HAVE changed in the last six months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Nothing has changed from the previous article deletion that would now support or establish notability. Cind.amuse 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Since I am not an admin, I cannot see the histories or judge the quality or content of any earlier version. To better serve the project, I judge the current version and without a bias based upon earlier ones. However, and despite your personal opinion that "nothing has changed" in this youngster's career, is that in addition to whatever productions she participated six months ago, A.N.T. Farm is now being aired and her film Spooky Buddies is in post-production. To deny that her career is advancing or that the current article can be imnproved through regular editing makes little sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notable young actress meeting WP:ENT in having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."[1] And toward that notable series where she had 22 appearances, and not to burst any bubbles, but the kids on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? are actors first... in the roles "of" fifth graders. A cute gimmic that requires a viewer's willing suspension of disbelief. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A review of the shows listed in your IMDb link above reveals that the roles were all minor, rather than significant ones. The participation in "5th grader" additionally fails significance. The children may be "actors" participating in a game show, but the individual 5th grade roles are not significant. While the concept is significant; the role is not. Cind.amuse 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not asserting that as an actor, her playing the role of a 5th grader in 22 episodes of a notable series is the sole production we may consider in regard notability, as we look at an overall and growing career. But of course, without the "5th graders" and their significant contributions to the the notable production, all we would have is Jeff Foxworthy doing stand-up. A suitable argument toward significance of other roles is that they are, for the most part, named characters that were important or significant to the various plotlines of the various shows, films, or episodes... so while personal determination that such named roles must all somehow be automatically be minor is a judgement call to which editors are entitled, please pardon me while I politely disagree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Regardless of how you may wish to define the role on "5th Grader", the subject simply lacks "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The roles performed by the subject are minor support roles, rather than significant. None were starring roles that drove the plot, but rather supported the plot and main characters. It's nothing personal. This is not a judgement call, but a reflection of the films and participation therein by the subject, as credited by the producers. In addition to the lack of significant roles, the article lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. We can't use IMDb to establish notability, and the Disney Channel ref isn't reliable or independent. Notability simply hasn't been established through either the general or topical notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but even in your repetition, you have still not rebutted the reasonable presumption toward notability that she has through having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The presumption is not rebutted by offering an opiinion that her named characters are automatically unimportant and insignificant to the various plotlines of the various shows, films, or episodes. That opinion contrary to the presumption allowed by ENT lacks any foundation. Perhaps you could share the sources you found from the various project's producers that show her named roles as insignificant? And if you wish yourself to now refer to cast listings in the IMDB you already denigrate, please understand that such listings can be simply alphabetical, or be based upon a cast member's addition to a project, or upon the cast member's IMDB popularity rating, or productions wish to elevate one cast member above another, or be completely random. Simply put, the GNG is not the only yardstick that is used to measure notability and the topical notability guideline has not been rebutted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Simply put, claims of significance amount to mere supposition. That is, expressing a belief about something; or the expression of a belief that is held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. Essentially, you are asking for proof of a negative. There is a lack of evidence which documents that the subject meets the topical notability guidelines which you assert, i.e., that she has had significant roles in multiple artistic productions. The topical notability guidelines serve as an indicator that sources may exist. They do not give leeway to dismissing the need for proper sourcing. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion stated in the topical guidelines is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance in an AfD discussion – the article itself must document notability. No more; no less. And nothing personal. Cind.amuse 10:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More simply put, a claim that named roles in notable productions are automatically insignificant unless "proven" otherwise is what is unverifiable supposition. As these roles are verifiable in reliable sources, ENT is met, and the verifiability of this actor having significant roles in multiple notable productions does not itself have to be significant coverage, as significant is not the mandate. An unverifiable assertion that the roles are not significant or not multiple does not rebut the presumption. What IS mandated by policy is that the roles and multiple instances be themselves verifiable by readers in sources outside of Wikipedia, as outside is where notability is documented. Again, the GNG is not the sole yardstick by which we measure notability, and a circular argument that returns only to the GNG is flawed and does not rebut the presumption. It is through regular editing by editors that articles and Wikipedia itself improves... but never through deletion of what can be made to serve the project simply because it has not yet been done. Just essays.... but with bearing... WP:PROBLEM: "A common maxim is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." WP:UGLY: "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." Of course these essays supported by editing policy are simply that... essays. But editors need consider if heeding an essay improves the project or hurts it, as there are far more processes set in place to improve the improvable, and essentially only one for dealing with the totally useless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The issue is not cleanup. The issue is notability and verifiability. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion stated in the topical guidelines is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance in an AfD discussion – the article itself must document notability. You claim the subject is notable based on topical guidelines. Please document your claims. Cind.amuse 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to disagree, but according to WP:Editing policy improving an improvable article is definitely a matter for cleanup and regular editing, and according to WP:Deletion policy, deleting an improvable article because it has not yet been done is never quite the best option. And what "is" required of an article is that it asserts a notability, sometimes through meeting the GNG... or sometimes through meeting a topical guideline such as WP:ENT. And what "is" required is that such assertion be verifiable in sources outside of Wikipedia. Yes, nice for the sources to be added, but simply as long as verfiability is possible, the presumtption is not rebutted. If an article states "Acor X had a recurring role in 10 episodes of production Z", all that anyone need do is insert that statement into a search engine and verifibility presents itself, showing verifiability available to ANY reader or editor who chooses to search. As the presumption herein is verifiable by anyone with access to the internet, requiring that I or others must verify it for you and show the results of our efforts does not rebut the presumption. For example, if all citations and references were to somehow vanish from some random FA article, and its history disappear and not be recoverable, the topic of that article would still be as notable as it was before all the citations vanished. The new lack of once-included citations would not then make the topic somehow instantly non-notable, as the verifiability of the article's information would still be availble to anyone who did a search and could be returned through diligent effort and regular editing. Improving the improvable is WP:CLEANUP Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The issue pertaining to deletion is not cleanup, but notability. Again, you claim the subject is notable based on topical guidelines. Please document your claims. Cind.amuse 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nope. Still have to disagree. You may continue to deny it, but improving any article is definitely a matter for cleanup and regular editing, and deletion is a last resort saved for the unsalvable. The article asserts a notability through meeting WP:ENT, and as her works are verifiable in multiple reliable sources,[2] and her characters in these multiple production have their signficance shown by their being writen of in context to the various productions. For example, her character of Susan in Ramona and Beezus is the ongoing foil of the lead character Ramona as played by Joey King.[3] THAT makes her contibution to plotline of that notable production significant. Denial of the easy verifiability is not a rebuttal. I need not "prove" the reasonable and verifiable presumption simply because you have not been able to rebut. That's not how it works here. Improving the improvable is a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 11 June 2011 (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.