Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denyse Tontz (3rd 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denyse Tontz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Denyse Tontz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT (does not have two notable roles) and WP:GNG (IMDb and youtube are not independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Denyse Tontz has notable roles like her role in Big Time Rush and as of right now Dog with a Blog. Right now I'm looking for reliable sources, give me time. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their are several pages that are not sourced. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, other stuff exists. The "regular characters" are clearly not the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by WP:ENT (one is simply included in an extensive list at Big Time Rush, the other (in Dog With a Blog) isn't even mentioned. The "in-depth coverage" is in a blog, not a reliable source. The "starring role" in All My Children is not in the All My Children you've heard of (on ABC). That show ended two years ago. Another company bought the rights to the name and plans to release a revival online. As for it being a "starring role", I see no indication of that. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the in-depth source says she will "star" in All My Children playing the role of Miranda Montgomery. The We Love Soaps source, producer of the Inside Soap Awards, is very reliable source per WP:SOURCES as it has editorial control over its content. That it's in blog format (as is TMZ.com and Gawker) is irrelevant to its reliability and independence of the topic per WP:SOURCES. Become familiar with WP:NEWSBLOG.--Oakshade (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm familiar with NEWSBLOG. However, I see nothing to indicate that the welovesoaps.com blog is connected to Inside Soap which runs the Inside Soap Awards. I do see that Miranda Montgomery has been played by two actors and three actresses so far. Only one is notable (for winning a Young Artist Award on another show). The role of Montgomery, the only significant role so far (if it turns out to be significant), hasn't happened yet (and had previously been reported as being played by another non-notable actress). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose Deletion - A hastily unwarranted nomination by an editor who has an unfortunate habit of preemptively clubbing baby seals with speedy deletion and AfD and other aggressive deletionism rather than contribute in expanding articles--as in this case within two hours after the article was created while the creator was still working to improve it. As an inclusionist, I'd let the creator continue improving the article (as he or she was doing and has been doing) for a short time before making an executioner's judgment on merits--although prima facie, 4 film roles passes the WP:ENT notability test. IMHO, this was definitely not worthy of wasting anyone's time with AfD, and I'd advise the nominating editor to realize it's in poor form to tear down a house while it's being built or to not give a new article a chance to grow. Sometimes it's best to let contributors contribute and see where it goes instead of being so deadset on imposing a draconian presence of the rule of law that strangles contributions and frustrates the contributors. Wikipedia doesn't need any more woeful Pharisees driving away contributors. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please comment on content not editors. Your dispute with me does not belong here. (This article had been previously deleted via AfD. With no reliable sources in the article and no indication her status had changed your "hastily unwarranted" claims are out of line.) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This article was also kept after an AfD (1st) and deleted after an AfD with two participants (with comments that it wasn't a decent consensus), you might want to tell the entire story instead of leaving out inconvenient facts. I explained my reasons on content, and I think your AfD nomination is abusive against an editor who just barely started the article before you assaulted it. Quite frankly, I really care little of your opinion because your only contribution seems to be abusing those who actually contribute with hasty assaults of AfD, tag bombing, and other dickishness. Stop acting like Nero--stop abusing contributors. Lastly, you shouldn't be abusing commenters here just because they disagree with you, so please, respect other people's well-intentioned comments here and stop trying to abuse them into silence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first AfD was in 2009. In addition to the possibility that consensus can change, I did disagree with the original AfD as I directly discussed in the second AfD. Further, the first AfD was based on significantly different criteria[1] which existed before WP:BLP was anywhere near its current form.[2]. That you are unsatisfied with the second AfD (now that you are here) is immaterial. Discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned my two cents on content, but simply because you disagree you continue disrespect it and imply my views don't matter on that basis alone...which is quite presumptuous of you. I disrespect you and continue to think low of you because you smugly think you need to comment on my opinion of this article as if your conceited abuse will change my mind. I could care less what you think. To me, you're nothing more than another Douglas C. Neidermeyer. Stop thinking you can continue to abuse people who disagree with you like myself and Oakshade, stop abusing people who actually contribute content.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing whether or not the subject page should be deleted. Please limit your discussion here to that issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then stop harassing people because they voted to keep the article. You alone are your own problem. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing whether or not the subject page should be deleted. Please limit your discussion here to that issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing those "additional significant roles and coverage". I see a blog and a role that doesn't seem to have happened yet. This AfD was started on an entertainer whose prior article was deleted after an AfD with no additional roles noted, sourced entirely to the subject's own website and youtube. Now we have a claim of a future role and a blog. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually significant Dog With a Blog role and the starring All My Children role were new, but you immediately put a speedy deletion tag citing WP:CSD G4 anyway which of course was factually incorrect. It appears you just got mad somebody created an article you AfD'd, didn't even read the newly created version and just attempted to quickly delete it. The removal of the speedy deletion tag was appropriate. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dog With a Blog role does not, IMO, appear to be significant. In the main article for that show, the character is merely listed. In the episode list, the character is mentioned in two episodes. I see no indication of significance. When nominated for deletion, the article barely lists the forthcoming internet version of All My Children role. If you believe I had some way of comparing the previously deleted version with the new version, I would be interested to hear what that is. If you believe I "got mad", I am wholly unaware of any indication of that. Rather, I was faced with a recreation of a deleted article on a BLP citing zero independent reliable sources. This, IMO, still seems to be the case. The blog does not give any indication of having the relationship you've indicated. If it does, please explain. At the moment, we have a WP:BLP about a subject who is of questionable notability sourced entirely to her person website, youtube and a blog. Rather than discussing me, please address this concern. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD, you're just banging your head on a wall and keep shifting why you think this article should be deleted. You first claimed WP:CSD G4 but you've given that up and now claiming a reliable source is someone's "self-published blog" simply because it's in blog format (AfD every article sourced by TMZ.com if you really think anything in blog format is not a reliable source). You either really aren't familiar with WP:NEWSBLOG or just choosing to ignore it as well as all of WP:RS which explains that if a source has editorial control over its content and has fact checking, it is a reliable source. It's like you're looking for any excuse to delete this article on a notable person and trying new methods when your earlier ones didn't work.--Oakshade (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have a BLP on a person of, at best, marginal notability. You have added a blog which you assert is responsible for an award and is produced by a notable magazine. Our articles on the magazine and the award attribute the award to the magazine and do not mention the blog you say is connected to both. The blog itself makes no mention of the magazine or the award. If this is a reliable source, it is a step toward "substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject". Otherwise, it's a blog. At present, we have a BLP sourced to the subject's personal page, youtube and a blog (with no indication that WP:NEWSBLOG applies). Please demonstrate that this blog is related to the magazine and award, as you have asserted. Then, we will have, finally, substantial coverage in at least one independent reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're following your logic; delete an article because you think a source is a personal blog due to your belief that blog doesn't produce a soap opera awards show. Wow. All you had to do was look at the We Love Soaps "About" page to learn more about it. Anyway, per WP:SOUCES, it's a reliable source and not someone's "self published blog" as you are desperately trying to claim. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than twisting my words, see if you can follow: WP:ENT (a guideline) would, if she passes it, suggest that she is probably notable. If she fails that, she probably is not. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I do not see that she has had such roles.
WP:GNG (a policy) calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Her personal webpage is certainly not independent. Youtube is not a reliable source. This leaves the blog. You stated "We Love Soaps source, producer of the Inside Soap Awards". Inside Soap Awards says "run by Inside Soap magazine" with no mention of the blog. Inside Soap also fails to mention the blog. The blog does not mention a connection to the magazine or the award. So I asked you to clarify. Repeatedly. Finally, you point to the blog's "About" page which does not mention the magazine or the award.
To source this BLP, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:GNG Is this blog one of the sources we need? Maybe. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Wikipedia:Blp#Avoid_self-published_sources You have yet to demonstrate that this blog is subject to the magazine's full editorial control. So far, you haven't shown any connection. Please demonstrate that this blog is subject to the magazine's full editorial control. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're making the strange demand that in order for the We Love Soaps source to be reliable, it must be run by Inside Soap magazine. Say what? Uh, no, We Love Soaps is independent of Inside Soap magazine. It just produces Inside Soap's awards show. It seems you're not familiar with awards shows productions, but its customary for organizations that sponsor awards shows to hire and contract other companies to produce them. (Edit: Apologize for my confusion between the Indie Soap Awards and Inside Soap Awards. We Love Soaps produces the Indie Soap Awards.) (here's the Indie Soap Awards blog that shows it's produced by We Love Soaps. And despite what you claim, the We Love Soaps "About" page does explain that they produce the Indie Soap Awards - near the top.) Besides, at least the Los Angeles Times and Daytime Confidential reference We Love Soaps as a reliable source. [3][4][5][6] If the Los Angeles Times considers it a reliable source, so does Wikipeida. If you're clinging to the fantasy that that organization is someone's personal blog, you're at odds with the Los Angeles Times and just banging your head on a wall.--Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)My "strange demand" is based on WP:BLP's strange demand that we cite blogs in BLP only when the blog is under the the full editorial control of a reliable news organization. (Clarifications: LA Times is not citing the blog, they mention it. Daytime Confidential redirects to Zap2it. I see nothing to indicate that this website's mentions of the blog in question make the blog a reliable source. I still do not see anything to support your claim that the blog produces the Inside Soap Awards or that this would sidestep WP:BLP's demand. The apparent producer of the awards, insidesoap.co.uk, does not mention this blog anywhere that I can find.) Apparently I misunderstood you. Your repeated references to WP:NEWSBLOG seemed to imply that the blog is part of a "newspaper, magazine, or other news organization". As the magazine was the only one we've discussed... Hmm, well, I'm unable to determine what you are referring to. In any case, please explain which "news organization" this blog is subject to the full editorial control of. Wikipedia:Blp#Avoid_self-published_sources
Holy crap: "And despite what you claim, the We Love Soaps "About" page does explain that they produce the Indie Soap Awards - near the top." If you say something incorrect and I dispute it, you cannot change your statement and take me to task for disputing it. Really, WTF. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And We Love Soaps is a reliable news source organization as it has editorial control over its content that's subject to fact checking. It doesn't have to be under the "control" of yet another news organization. Even you admit the Los Angeles Times mentions it. Actually it fact sources it, confirming its reliability. Your fantasy that We Love Soaps is a "self published blog" is yours alone.--Oakshade (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We Love Soaps is a blog, as you have repeatedly confirmed. The have a staff of two people. You have repeatedly claimed it is reliable under WP:NEWSBLOG, though you have not indicated what newspaper, magazine or news organization this blog is related to. {"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs.") WP:BLP directly prohibits the use of such a source unless "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
(Incidentally, LA Times does not cite the blog, it quotes "Roger Newcomb, founder of the We Love Soaps website". Quoting John Smith of the Daily Scandal Rag would not make Smith or the Rag a reliable source, it would merely verify that Smith said whatever he said. Heck, here's the LA Times quoting the publishers of the National Enquirer.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that counter was so weak, I'll just let that one go. Let the others analyze this all and decide for themselves. Good night. --Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need multiple reliable sources. The closest you've found is the blog. That should be telling you something. It is simply too soon to have a BLP on her. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence that the We Love Soaps news source is somebody's personal self published blog is now a gigantic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're constant desperate repeating "that's a blog" simply because it's in blog format is just banging your head against a wall. As noted by another user above, you've got problems, SummerPhD.--Oakshade (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated referral to WP:NEWSBLOG confirms you felt it was a blog until very recently. BLPs need solid sources, not IMDb, youtube and blogs. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until Tontz is on AMC long enough—in a significant-enough role—to meet WP:ENT; currently, the article's subject does not (Miranda Montgomery has also long been tagged for notability). Miniapolis 13:32, 25 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denyse_Tontz_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1070418717"