Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete. After somewhat extended time for discussion, there is clearly more numerical support for keeping rather than deleting (9 to 5, counting the nominator), but this support primarily seems to reference the volume of sources added as a case for meeting WP:GNG, without identifying any number of sources providing substantial coverage of the subject. An argument is made that quantity is sufficient even in the absence of quality, but acknowledges that quality is better. There is, therefore, an absence of clear consensus that this article meets all criteria for inclusion, and the discussion is closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Calvert (actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Casey Calvert (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last time this was discussed there was no consensus due to pornbio which the community has now depreceated. The sourcing is still primary and the article has not improved since the last discussion. Fails GNG, ENT and, as. a BLP deserves better Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Morbidthoughts Consider adding the Vice and Rolling Stone citations to the article. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts and Ad Meliora: This is now  Done. Please compare before to after the research project with material from additional sources. Thank you for your research and helpful suggestions. Right cite (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job, Right cite Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts:, thank you, that means a lot! Right cite (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the sources provided by Morbidthoughts. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guideline. The sources put forth here in the AfD are not great and the Rolling Stone source is definitely trivial. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actors and media personalities can be considered WP:N based on more relaxed guidelines than GNG. An exclusive interview in WP:RS is analogous to a profile in RS. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 21:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Revisiting the sources, I'd have to agree with Morbidthoughts that she passes WP:GNG. Four WP:RS have been cited, and at least three of those are very solid and substantial.— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:GNG isn't trumped by more specific guidelines; the latter exist as rules-of-thumb, but when push comes to shove a subsidiary guideline that includes material GNG would exclude is necessarily suspect. In any case the implication here is that the subject is not significantly notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG and I don't think an interview counts as a RS because unless I'm remembering wrong interviews are considered primary sources. Whatever a sub guideline might say. Although, I do think they can better to use then the GNG in some cases, just not this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct transcripts of interviews are indeed primary sources. However, a reporter interviewing the subject for quotes to develop an article is still secondary coverage. For more information, see WP:INTERVIEW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW says "commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material." Personally, I'm not really generally sure what the "sometimes" refers to or where the line is. Except for feeling like the source in question isn't a RS. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay though, and therefore has no bearing in AfDs. I do know WP:OR has a mention of interviews being primary sources in the notes section, but it's not in the body of the guideline and doesn't say if it's only applicable to transcripts of interviews. That said, I would think straight transcripts of interviews are extremely rare. At least in print news sources. So, I find it hard to believe that would be standard. Also, from what I've seen in AfDs it's definitely the consensus that interviews are not RSs and no one every makes the distinction between direct transcripts and interviews that aren't. So, I'd like to see somewhere the difference is talked about or something. Maybe someone can enlighten me to what the "sometimes" in WP:INTERVIEW is referring to also. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of WP:OR applies to factual information, not notability. The fact that someone has an interview published in a major WP:RS makes them notable. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 13:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I mostly mentioned it in relation to trying to find something about interviews in an actual guideline instead of essay, and that's all I was able to find. I'm not saying it's uber related to this though. Really, I'm just surprised interviews are really only talked about in an essay. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently did a research initiative at this article topic, taking it from before to after the research project with material from additional sources. I added in info that was previously not there, about her work as a film director. Casey Calvert is extensively discussed at length in the book, Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy (2015). Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this this has been listed at ARS. I have already made a private bet t o myself ho w many keep votes that generates. I'll let you know after this closes how acc urate my guess was. Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting general aspersions is not a collegial way of building an encyclopedia. ARS is not a magic wand, if a subject can be shown to be notable by improving it with regular editing and identifying sources then we all win. If the subject is still lacking notability then it will be removed. Gleeanon 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was an aspersion (or aspersions) about that? The fact is notifying ARS about an AfD increases keep votes. Otherwise, there would be no reason anyone from ARS would alert each other. BTW, find it kind of odd how sensitive you ARS people are. Especially considering how many times you all make things personal. I never see you calling each other out for it either, but then rather benign comments like Spartaz always seems to trigger the castigating from you guys and the fake virtue signaling about how much you all care about civility (like Rite Cite's comment on you talk page), when most of you are extremely far from civil about things. FYI, I'm not perfect myself either, but then I'm not leaving messages on people's talk pages fawning over them "putting other people in their place" either or pretending that I'm (or the group I'm a member of is) gods gift to Wikipedia either. I look forward to you and Rite Cite telling ARS people to tone it down the next time one of them gets condecending in an AfD. I'm sure there have been a few over the last few weeks where neither of you said anything when it happened. Even though you supposedly so concerned about it. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I highly doubt Rite Side would be this proficent and calculated at editing articles and doing other things if he was just a few week old editor, who's only seriously edited like 4 articles. It's something to think about. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your not assuming good faith is noted. Gleeanon 18:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a lack of AGF is a common, extremely trite way to handwave away legitimate comments and concerns. Its also worthless outside of using it for trite handwaving because it takes a lack of good faith to say someone else isn't assuming any. Personally, I'm not such a big fan of such passive agressive, mealy mouthed ways of responding to people. Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Gleeanon 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensively referenced, clearly meets WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets GNG even if more cleanup is needed. Gleeanon 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG in that she receives significant coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources and those sources are listed. Quantity does not matter as much as quality but when quality is put with quantity it is a win for the encyclopedia. What constitutes a reliable secondary source can differ when going from one industry to another or even one culture to another. Nothing else matters to me but GNG in this case. I look at essays and guidelines if a subject is on the fence in regards to GNG and it needs help pushing it one way or the other. For the record, I am not a member of ARS but I commend any project that seeks to increase the number of included/improved articles while helping to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also feel the attacks on them above are seriously uncalled for and "AGF" is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, not just for new editors but all editors. I think we all could learn to be a little more civil in our tone and the words we use, myself included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska:, thank you very very much. Your well thought out and reasoned comments are most appreciated. Especially your comments about how we should all try to improve our tone, civility, and good faith expressed towards one another on the encyclopedia and within the community towards each other. Thank you, Tsistunagiska, thank you! Right cite (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your off topic, unasked for, and frankly wrong opinions about other people's behavior aside, out the 117 refences in the article can either one of you point to three in-depth ones that are not trivial, not primary, or not an interview? Because I can't seem to find any. I just looked through 60 of them and none of them were in-depth or met the GNG. 99% of them were just name drops or briefs mentions of awards she's won. In no way is an article with 117 references where half are name drops an "improvement on anything. Nor is citing four sources (especially those ones) per sentence, just to make an article seem notable an "improvement." In fact, the article is practically un-readable now. So, back up your keep vote and your off topic rambling by pointing to three sources that fit with what I said. If you can't, at least Right cite should be able since he's the one that added them and skip the excuses about my "tone." Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. Someone not bending over backwards to stroke your ego like a sycophant isn't an excuse to not answer legitimate, on topic questions anyway. Personally, I've dealt with Rite cite in a few AfDs now and I can 100% guarantee that the complaints about tone are a deflection tactic and that he considers anything that isn't along the lines of "your gods gift to Wikipedia" as a personal insult, or at least pretends that's the case. So, which three sources are in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing others' opinions as assumptions while oneself in the exact same comment, making assumptions about others' opinions, is, at the very least, contradictory. And behaving exactly how one is asking not to be treated by others. Right cite (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can't cite three in-depth sources that are in the article huh? I didn't think so. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska:, I think essentially what you are saying is that we should all try a little bit harder to practice the Golden Rule. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–Adamant, you made your point and !voted. Others made theirs and !voted. Continuing to personally attack other editors on this discussion while then criticizing them for responding directly to your attacks is not beneficial to anyone. Let the process work itself out. Everyone can see the article because it's in mainspace. They can also make their own conclusions about the sources provided and any others they may find in doing a search. I debated responding to you because your tone proves to me that you are completely unreasonable at this point but for the sake of the nominating process and the discussion I felt the need to respond and call for civility once more from everyone. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the rest of your comment and ignoring the fact that your the one that restarted things by needlessly taking pot shots at people on your vote when there was zero reason to, asking someone who votes keep based on the GNG which sources they feel meet it is pretty standard fare and there's nothing wrong with it. AfDs are discussion, period. The problem with people like you and Rite cite though is that simply asking what sources you based your vote on is "uncivil", "not letting the process play out" (as if that's we do on the first place), etc etc. Whereas, Rite cite can post as many off topic high fivish or whatever messages as he wants and you can restart arguements by making comments in your keep vote that have nothing to do with the article. Yet for some bizzare reason neither of those things dont get in the way of the process etc. etc. A small hint for you, anything not DIRECTLY related to the AfD gets in the way of the proccess playing out. Especially stiring the pot when its already settled. So, save it. Anyway, can you point to three in-depth sources in the article or not? Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, any running "meta" comentary isn't constructive to the AfD. The fact that it's "polite" comentery on Rite Cite part (which is questionable) is completely irrelevant. Any time repeatedly acts in a none constructive way in AfDs like he has we have a right and obligation to tell them stop doing so. Me and other users have said his comments are not constructive. Which is what he considers "insulting." There's nothing civil on his part continue doing things people have asked him not to. Period. Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for it at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the stick. Gleeanon 16:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't WP:LAWYER or I'll tell my mom on you ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casey_Calvert_(actress)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1073182006"