Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jillian Michaels (voice actress)

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. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Michaels (voice actress)[edit]

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

Unsourced since the beginning of Wikipedia time. Voice artists do work, this is true, but it is not all that common for them to pass the GNG. Having done a lot of voices doesn't make one notable: having one's work discussed in-depth in reliable sources does. I do not see that that's the case here; I do not find any such discussion at all. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought maybe nom was hyperbolizing with "since the beginning of Wikipedia time", but it turns out the article really was first created in 2003. As always, voice actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because some (or a lot of) roles can be listed — they get over NACTOR when they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage about their work in those roles. But fourteen years to infinity later, there's still not a single source being shown here besides the fact that she has an IMDb profile — which, as always, is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie either: IMDb is user-generated, so it can and does contain uncaught errors, and inclusion on there is a WP:ROUTINE distinction that every working actor in existence gets the moment they have one role to list. So no, nothing stated or sourced here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 18 June 2017 (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.