Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley (4th 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 delete. Tone 10:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley[edit]

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

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

This article has been deleted by AfD a whopping three times. Granted, since the last deletion of this article, it appears that the subject has won minor awards at the Festigious and Toronto Short Film Festivals (not to be confused with the much more notable Toronto International Film Festival, and has been covered at a website that boasts a "blend of professional and user-driven content" and is therefore by definition not a reliable source. Fails WP:GNG, should consider salt since clearly a few editors are very keen on keeping this article up at all costs. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clearly some "die heart" fans or someone with "special" interest created this article again and again. Perhaps wiki should create a new rule for articles that have been deleted to be closely monitored to avoid similar issue to happen again -Jay (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & SALT Four times this has been here?! Why has no one salted this article? Lets delete and SALT this time so we don't have to waltz this waltz again. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a CoI as Emily is a casual friend of mine, so I won't be putting in a !vote here, but I would note that the digital journal article in question does not appear to be user-generated content unless I'm mistaken. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: I will concede that it's not clear from looking at the author's profile if they are a professional or user contributor, but given that the website boasts about "blending professional content with high-quality user generated contributions", I'd expect a contributor's status to be completely clear before accepting their article as reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm not really in a position to ask her if she paid somebody to write an article about her. But I can say that the author is not somebody I know personally from that community to be connected to her. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the guideline against using sources with user-submitted content wasn't due to a suspicion of COI, but simply due to a lack of verifiability and the lack of an editorial board explicitly taking accountability for the content? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fair. I think I misunderstood where you were going with that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The person who wrote the article is rated as a top content producer, with almot 250k views on a reasonably long list of articles so it's not like they just posted one article about the subject in question.Redheadfan69 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We give zero shits about Digital Journal's self-ratings of its own writers. User-generated sources are never valid support for notability under any circumstances. There are no conditions under which some DJ writers count for more than other DJ writers do — no matter who writes it or where DJ ranks them among its contributors, DJ content is automatically invalid and unacceptable sourcing for Wikipedia content period. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with SALT. The sourcing here is not an improvement over the prior attempts. There are only three references here that count as reliable sources at all, and one of them (Scarborough Mirror) is a neighbourhood pennysaver rather than a major market daily, while the two that are dailies (St. Catharines Standard and Waterloo Record) are midsize-market papers — so those two are a start toward getting her over WP:GNG, but not a finish all by themselves if nothing they verify about her actually constitutes an article-clinching notability claim. Rosguill is right that the core issue with user-generated sources like Digital Journal is the verifiability problem — but COI isn't entirely irrelevant, because one of the problems is that such platforms can be (and sometimes are) used in an attempt to game our inclusion rules by creating and distributing self-created fake sources to "support" Wikipedia articles. That fact doesn't mean, however, that the permissibility of a USERG source is made conditional on whether the writer can be proven or disproven as a COI editor making fake sourcing for themselves — USERG sources are simply prohibited from ever being used as support for notability at all, for the reasons Rosguill pointed out. This is simply not referenced well enough to get her past WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get past GNG on much stronger sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about The Journal Pioneer? There was an article posted there as well about Ms. Schooley's recent theatre show

(1) Short blurb. (2) Good luck convincing anyone that Summerside PE (pop. 15K on a good day) is a large enough market for its local newspaper to singlehandedly carry a GNG pass all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is still raccoon poop. If you want to clinch a person's notability on just three short newspaper articles, then those newspapers need to be in major cities like Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver, not minor ones like Summerside or Waterloo or St. Catharines. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are several reputable news sources about the subject, as well as some mentions of several of her acting roles in scholarly papers and e-pubs. Clearly she continues to work in the industry and have her work be noticed by her peers. Redheadfan69 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Redheadfan69 (talk · contribs) has made few edits outside of this area and the account is only about 5-6 weeks old. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Scholarly papers? Where, pray tell? The sourcing here, to refresh your memory, is 23/26 non-notability-assisting garbage, and 3/26 midsize-to-small market newspapers that would be fine for verification of facts if the other 22 sources were solid, but are not widely distributed enough to overlook the other 22 sources being non-notability-assisting garbage. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't salt Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article about this person, but salting the article is overkill. If continued career success, there should be a bio in future. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt If and when she gets a career that is reported in sources we can use then we can un-salt, but I view repeated recreations to be disruptive and should be curtailed when possible. Valeince (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - TOOSOON now and probably will be in 10 years too, Fails NACTOR, DIRECTOR & GNG, Salt for obvious reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 29 September 2018 (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.