Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Stiller (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Stiller and Meara. As she's not mentioned on Ben Stiller, redirecting to her parents' article seems to make more sense. Ged UK 13:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stiller[edit]

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

Article has been re-created in the wake of the death of Anne Meara. Was just deleted in April 2015 for not meeting general notability guidelines See previous deletion discussion here [1]. Result was delete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore original version - I supported keeping it the first time and still do. IMO it doesn't matter if she gets more coverage and press because of her family; she still gets the coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails the GNG because there is no coverage in reliable sources about her. None of her film or TV appearances is particularly important; in fact they're mostly bit roles in her brother's or father's projects. Notability isn't inherited either. Calidum T|C 19:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG, It's sad her mother's died but it doesn't mean she gets a free pass to an article because of that, Failed GNG the first time and unfortunately does now. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Stiller - Indeed, she has never gotten much independent notability although she's had her sporadic roles in TV shows and here but it would save the article rather than delete and have it open for future use. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to keep an article "open" that has no content and a non-notable individual as the article subject? Doing so is the antithesis of Wikipedia's purpose let alone the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: I agree but because moving is an alternative to deletion and this is a searchable term so it will take it to the most relevant article, Ben Stiller (with whom she has starred in his projects). SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the earlier real article and then delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt; she still isn't covered enough in reliable sources to meet GNG, and notability is not inherited. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not funny, my brother died that way —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is that supposed to be a joke, Wikimandia? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to taste. Nothing has increased her notability in the whole month since she was last deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – I agree with Мандичка (above). I created this article a day or so ago. When I read the biography of Anne Meara, I was quite surprised to see that Amy Stiller did not have her own article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are 1) Amy isn't particularly noted for much (if anything) on her own, 2) she is only mentioned briefly in reliable sources Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have expanded article a bit but it can still be expanded. I added what I think are reliable sources. Weak keep. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4 and WP:SNOW. I don't know why we're even having a discussion here. There was a clear consensus for a delete just a little over a month ago. No need to have it again. JDDJS (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Stiller - Does not meet the notability guidelines due to her brothers relation which drives the media crazy enough to ignore her own decades long film career. It is a extremely valid search item though and if it was redirected originally would've saved this from happening. It's not salt ready all because someone read in her mothers obit about her long film career and wondered why there was not a blue link. Not at all disruptive re-creation.. GuzzyG (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG. Any actress with as many film/tv credits (37) as she has is notable, per her IMBD page [2] HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not reliable, and notability isn't solely determined by number of credits. Additionally, no reliable sources give her enough coverage to meet GNG. The closest I can find is PlayBill, which has only a medium amount at most. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarity's sake, HesioneHushabye, imdb isn't reliable because it's very similar to Wikipedia. Average-joe folks like us edit the site and its content is possible to change (wrong or right) frequently. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::IMBD is reliable when determining someone in the film/television profession's credits. Browsing her IMBD page, Amy Stiller has been in many big movies. I've seen articles created for actresses with only 1-5 credits. She has 37. HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is long-standing consensus that it isn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums is correct. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, it is. But if you need more proof, check out her website here [3], and her resume here [4] quite an accomplished performer! HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not solely determined by how many credits one has. Her own website is reliable for credits, but doesn't count towards WP:Notability; we need reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Using one's own site is basically just self-promotion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Neither work for our purposes. Her website is a primary source and imdb is unreliable. Doing the research at both would be a form of synthesis, creating an original research situation. That leaves us with more unreliable sourcing. Which is the main problem with this article: unreliable sources = not really anything that supports her notability = not meeting WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your assertion she isn't notable is that you are claiming she's never been in a film or on a TV show, which is easily proven false. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How did you arrive at the conclusion we said she's never been in a film or on TV? We are talking about notability. Being in films and TV doesn't guarantee meeting GNG. I've been in films and on TV numerous times; I don't meet notability guidelines and neither do a number of my friends who have also been in films and on TV. It's not about credits, it's about sufficient coverage establishing notability. Perhaps you need to review what GNG is about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what notability is about, perhaps you should read the fine print. It states on the page Notability does not always depend on the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online.[5]. It also states that an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."[6] which she clearly has. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting one very important factor: that coverage regarding such credits needs to come from a reliable source in order for said notability to be established. Where are the reliable, secondary, unbiased sources? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines state "While meeting the criteria of the General notability guidelines allows a presumption of notability, it is also seen that Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically instructs that a topic can also be considered notable, even failing the GNG, if it otherwise meets the criteria outlined in one or the more subject specific guidelines". [7].

In short, for an actor, it's presumed that she has performed in film, television, and stage. Links like this [8] and this [9] confirm she has played roles in professional stage productions, which means she meets notability guidelines for Entertainers [10]. HesioneHushabye (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try asking the question again: where are the reliable sources? If there aren't any, you don't have an article that meets GNG or BLP guidelines. It's quite simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try posting links for Winkelvi again: [11], [12], [13], [14]. It's quite simple. She meets guidelines for Notability for Entertainers. [15]. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two playbills, an agency website and a self published website are ALL primary sources. Who do you think writes the content for playbills? (I'll give you a hint: it's not unbiased individuals who write for reliable sources where there is journalistic oversight). Who do you think writes the content for agency websites and personal websites? (another hint: it's not unbiased individuals who write for reliable sources where there is journalistic oversight). But, insist on living in the world of WP:IDHT if you must. You certainly seem happy there. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that using multiple articles from the same publication only counts as one source giving coverage. One reliable secondary source alone isn't enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because once again you are both claiming she has never been involved in professional films, television shows, or stage productions, because if she had, she would meet [16]. Playbill is a professional website. Please review guidelines for notability once again Notability does not always depend on the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online.[17]. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) No, neither of us ever claimed "she has never been involved in professional films, television shows, or stage productions". What we said is that being involved in such productions does not automatically equate to notability. We need reliable secondary sources discussing Amy herself to establish notability per GNG, not just listings of her roles. I'm aware that Playbill is reliable, but it is not on its own enough to show notability. Also, while the page you linked is an essay, the GNG is an official guideline. Essays can be insightful, but guidelines and policies carry more weight. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be aware of this Wikipedia guideline. WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive. She clearly meets WP:ENT. The sources you are claiming to need to prove notability are not needed for an actor. Please refer to this guideline "Actors meet Merit of Inclusion through meeting WP:ENT, through an allowable and reasonable presumption that sources exist somewhere" HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stiller and Meara. Quis separabit? 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stiller and Meara or Ben Stiller: Just because a performer has 37 credits does not automatically warrant notability. If this article is to remain on its own, there has to been more research, more thoughtful prose, and more resources (outside of filmography or credits whether reliable or not) within the article.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either of the targets mentioned above. No evidence of independent notability. I'm also going to create an AfD for Amy Stiller's Breast -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Passes the notability test. No reason to not have an article. JOJ ^Hutton 21:19, 3 June 2015 (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.