Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imani Hakim
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. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imani Hakim[edit]
- Imani Hakim (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)
Not notable. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Essentially an unsourced BLP at the moment. I am unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Too soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC) SummerPhD (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being one of the stars of a national hit TV series that lasted four seasons in itself demonstrates notability (WP:TOOSOON would have applied before the series). While there doesn't seem a specific piece that goes very in-depth on this person the sheer large mass of coverage that has been given to this person in combination passes WP:GNG ("The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources"). --Oakshade (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Being one of the stars of a national hit TV series that lasted four seasons" does not demonstrate notability. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". This leaves us with WP:GNG, calling for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have not found significant coverage ("sources address the subject directly in detail"). If you have, please note where. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people employing common sense consider one of the stars of a hit four season television show as notable despite what the letter of of WP:ENT says as oppose to WP:ENT's principle. I would consider a person who had staring roles on two 1 season shows less notable than Hakim, but that person would pass the letter of WP:ENT. Just by cherry-picking one word ("multiple") in a sub-section of a sub-guideline whilst ignoring the principles of our guidelines is a classic example of WP:GAMETYPE. --Oakshade (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people do not like to be accused of lacking common sense or of gaming the system. Most people should feel free to disagree with me and my ideas, but I would hope they would assume I am neither an idiot nor gaming the system. If you don't like the deliberate wording of a guideline, feel free to work toward adjusting that. As for the "sub-section of a sub-guideline", it would seem WP:ENT would be her best bet. She doesn't seem to have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". That leaves the multiple notable productions, which she doesn't seem to have. If you feel she meets another section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), please explain.
- Long story short: no subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yeah, "substantial". I know. If we have that coverage, we have a subject, if we don't, we don't. If you cite it here, I might even agree with you. Having been unable to find it myself, I can't really have an opinion other than what I've already expressed. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as I stated in my first comment, I consider the sheer mass of coverage as "substantial", that in combination of being one the stars of a major hit television show. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a substantial number of Google hits. In looking through the first few pages, all of them were bare mentions (actor = character), blogs and press releases. I haven't been able to find any substantial coverage and remain unaware of any. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a substantial amount of coverage with news archives, not just "blogs" found on a raw google search that you did. I consider the amount of different sources as "substantial" per WP:GNG. You don't. Fine.--Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the very Google search you referred to early that my first few pages consisted of blogs/blog-like sources, bare mentions and press releases. If you've found something more, it would be helpful if you would be more specific. If not, I still don't see sources for more than the tiniest of perma-stubs. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a substantial amount of coverage with news archives, not just "blogs" found on a raw google search that you did. I consider the amount of different sources as "substantial" per WP:GNG. You don't. Fine.--Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a substantial number of Google hits. In looking through the first few pages, all of them were bare mentions (actor = character), blogs and press releases. I haven't been able to find any substantial coverage and remain unaware of any. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as I stated in my first comment, I consider the sheer mass of coverage as "substantial", that in combination of being one the stars of a major hit television show. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The WP:GHITS or not, the fact remains that after being listed for two weeks nothing has been added to the article with regard to sourcing, and the article is, as mentioned, essentailly a UBLP at this point. The fact that no sources have been added to the article in two weeks indicates that none of the "sheer mass of coverage" rises to the level of "substanstial coverage" in reliable sources and thus this should be deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't take away the common sense of someone co-starring on a national hit show that lasted four seasons is somehow considered "non notable." We have articles for people who have achieved far less but they are deemed "notable" simply because an article somewhere was written about them. Our guidelines are failing us in this case. --Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policies (not guidelines) WP:V and WP:RS, you mean? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't take away the common sense of someone co-starring on a national hit show that lasted four seasons is somehow considered "non notable." We have articles for people who have achieved far less but they are deemed "notable" simply because an article somewhere was written about them. Our guidelines are failing us in this case. --Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 31 July 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.