Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Gould

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. Sandstein 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gould[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)

Even if you want to argue that Gould technically meets WP:NACTOR (and, at best, it's borderline, with only two "significant" roles as a child actor...), I have found nothing to indicate the kind of subject-specific coverage that would meet WP:BASIC. In addition, subject has not worked in over 5 years, and appears to have retired from acting, so it does not appear that this situation will improve. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. "Subject has retired from [occupation]" ought to be added to Arguments to avoid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to actually read what I said before firing off a vote. As it is, you've contributed nothing to the discussion, as you have completely ignored the WP:BASIC argument, which is the crux of the deletion reasoning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once WP:GNG always WP:GNG. See Noah Raby - notable for lying at the turn of the century. Still notable 100 years later. Eastmain is correct. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, Lubbad85 – then where is the sourcing to show that?! You can't just claim somebody is "notable" – you have to prove that they are notable under WP:BASIC. So far we have two editors claiming "notable", without offering a shred of evidence of actual "notability" in Wikipedia terms. If there's no "in depth coverage", they aren't notable. So show me how Gould is notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject needed a thorough WP:BEFORE - understandably not an easy task based on my cursory search. It is evident that the subject is GNG through the many mainstream national roles on television and in popular culture - however I am finding many passing mentions in sources. Some unknown ambitious editor will need search deeper and farther. This is not a case of WP:BUTITEXISTS. But more a case of WP:HARDWORK WP:PRESERVE

Los Angeles Times
Disney
Jewish Journal
Desert News
Denver Post

@Lubbad85: Yes, and "passing mentions" is the problem – that, by definition, doesn't establish notability (as per WP:BASIC)... However, that Jewish Journal profile is a good find – it's a bona fide "in depth" coverage, and explains why Gould hasn't acted since 2014. That one, at least, moves me from "strong delete" to "weak delete". If somebody can find another in-depth coverage article, esp. dating from when Gould was still a working child actress, I think that would probably be enough to get it "over the hump" to "keep"... So, better, but still not there yet, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to the deletion rationale, if the person has two significant notable roles, that counts to passing the subject specific guideline for actors. Remember Wikipedia:Notability clearly states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". It doesn't have to meet both or the subject-specific guidelines would be meaningless. Dream Focus 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus: No – that reveals a common misconception about the SNG's: the SNG's are subservient to (or "supplements to") WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, they don't "overrule" them. See, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Timmins (2nd nomination) – while that subject almost certainly met WP:NACTOR in technical terms, she still did not meet WP:BASIC. IOW, being in the "main cast" of 2 TV series, and say a movie, doesn't a priori make you notable – it just makes it likely that you will be notable... I'll ping Bearcat here, because he generally does a better job of explaining this than I do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - When the notability guidelines were first created it was determined there was more than one way to prove notability. So guidelines were made for certain specific subjects. A scientists or mathematician is notable for their accomplishments alone, even if they didn't get written up in the media, musicians are notable for their work even if they did no interviews or revealed anything about themselves someone would write about, etc. People argue back and forth for years on this, articles kept or deleted based on whoever randomly appears to comment and the closing administrator. An actor is notable for their work even if they had no scandals to write about in the media or did interviews. Dream Focus 19:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for actors, if you're shooting for "notable because she's had roles", is not passed just because the article says that roles have been had — it is passed only when reliable sources attest to the "majorness" of the roles by paying attention to them and/or her. For example, a film review can help speak to an actor's notability if the critic singles the actor's performance out for special praise, but does not help speak to the actor's notability if it just mentions their name a single time in the cast list endnotes. Simply listing roles does not hand an actor a free exemption from having to have any sources, because then every actor would always get that free exemption the moment they had a second role. It doesn't take as much reliable source coverage to get a person over an SNG on "meets a specific notability criterion" grounds as it does to get a person over GNG on pure "just because media coverage exists" grounds — but it still takes more than none, and no SNG ever confers a free exemption from having to show any evidence of reliable sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She has two things listed as "Main role". If she is on every episode, then she "Has had significant roles in multiple television shows". Dream Focus 20:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat's point, and mine, is that: just because you're in the main cast of a TV series, it doesn't guarantee that you're "notable". Yes, usually it does, but not always. That goes double for child actors – you can be a child actor who's in the main cast of a TV series, but that doesn't mean the character the child actor plays on the show is particularly notable or "significant". I agree with Bearcat – the real test of notability is whether the actor's role(s) garners significant, independent coverage... But you can even be the lead of a lower-rung TV series (e.g. a "kid's' show"), and still not be notable, because the show itself is basically ignored by independent sources... Going with your thinking would mean that every journeyman character actor who's had a years-long career would justify a Wikipedia article, but again and again at AfD those kinds of articles tend to get deleted, because while being journeyman character actor leads to a very substantial list of credits, it doesn't guarantee significant independent coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they get deleted and sometimes they don't. So far three people say she is notable and the article should be kept, with the only person but you saying it should be deleted someone you pinged to come over here and agree with you. She had speaking roles on two notable television shows and was most likely in every episode. I believe that is clear enough to make her qualified for a Wikipedia article under the current rules. But we'll see how many others give their opinions and how consensus is read by the closing administrator. Dream Focus 21:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying for an article under WP:NACTOR does not hinge on merely naming roles, it hinges on reliably sourcing the significance of the roles. If just saying the words "speaking role" were an automatic inclusion freebie that exempted the person from ever actually having to show any sources at all, then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable actor anymore. Reliable sources have to tell us whether any given role was "major" enough to count toward getting the actor over NACTOR, and just throwing the word "major" around like potatoes in a food fight doesn't accomplish anything if the correct quality of sources aren't there to support the description. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting arguments regarding notability. Dream Focus is correct. Also I too see a problem with pinging Bearcat - Bearcat has been canvased, and Bearcat is a regular afd nominator. I will say that her notability will always be there. However I will continue to search for sources. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus is not correct. Getting an actor over NACTOR is not a question of saying the words "major role", it is a question of referencing the majorness of the roles to reliable sources. There are no SNGs for people that ever exempt the subject from having to have any reliable source coverage just because of what the article claims, because sometimes people lie about themselves in an attempt to get into Wikipedia for the free publicity — we've seen actors and writers and musicians claim award nominations they did not really have, we've seen actors claim roles they didn't really play and/or vastly overstate the significance of roles they did (e.g. claiming starring status for what was really a non-speaking extra role), we've seen musicians claim charting hits they didn't really achieve, we've seen politicians claim offices they didn't really hold. So every notability claim, GNG or SNG or otherwise, always still has to be verifiable in some form of reliable source coverage before it actually translates into a keepable article. It's not what an article says that gets it kept, because sometimes our articles actually say false things: the question of whether someone passes a notability criterion or not is determined by how well the article references that the things it says are true. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat wasn't "canvassed" – I didn't ask him to "vote" here: I asked him to explain his opinion on something. I honestly didn't expect him to vote in this AfD (and I didn't ask him to), 'cos I doubted he would care about this specific AfD. I only asked him to explain that SNG's do not "trump" WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, despite some editors believing that this is the case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall I will AGF, however you pinged Bearcat because you knew Bearcat would agree with your position and could explain it. That is canvassing. Bearcat nominates quite a few articles for deletion and sometimes I agree with Bearcat - not in this case. So pinging Bearcat was to get support for your position - and that is pretty much the definition of canvassing. Anyway, I am going to try to improve the article instead of arguing here. The reason I do not consider ARS canvassing is that the members come to improve an article. Not to simply say keep or delete and argue. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first sentences of WP:Canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (emphasis mine) It's right there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the section labeled Inappropriate notification it says Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions. You knew he'd agree with you and say delete. I doubt you would've pinged him otherwise. Dream Focus 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not know that – I knew he'd explain a POV, but I didn't expect Bearcat to actually vote. You, OTOH, are dangerously close to violating WP:ASPERSIONS there, sport. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gently suggest that both of you need to Cool off and concentrate on the issue at hand. WP:Dead horse and WP:Civil could be applied. We are all wp:volunteers here – See WP:Cooperation – and we need to fix the problem and the article; not fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is not faking her GNG. I will do my best on the article. "Drop Dead Diva" also stars comedian Margaret Cho as Jane's assistant, and features a long roster of A-list guest stars including Tim Gunn, Kathy Najimy, Teri Polo, Kelly Gould, Sharon Lawrence (as Deb's mom) and Rosie O'Donnell." Lubbad85 (☎) 02:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Another "passing mention" only. Nearly every actor can produce sources like this. This is why WP:BASIC says "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" (emphasis mine). So far, only the Jewish Journal profile source seems to meet this standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall We can disagree - However I see a very notable child star who retired to pursue college - I am going to give it a go. So far the article is improving. Perhaps you will change your opinion when it gets improved. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Deseret News source is another helpful addition – it's not enough by itself, but combined with a couple of in-depth profile sources, it may arguably be enough... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said she was "faking her GNG". GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing, not of what the article says, so on the basis of the source that have been shown so far she doesn't have any GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. "Subject has retired from [occupation]" ought to be added to Arguments to avoid. Indeed, given her age, her career may very well be on hiatus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not say that "subject has retired" was a reason to delete — they said that "subject has retired" is a reason that we can't just presume that notability-supporting sources will actually start to exist anytime soon. And "once notable, always notable" only becomes true if and when the subject's notability has actually been properly demonstrated to the correct type of sourcing — and the sources here aren't demonstrating that she was ever notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Strong disagree. The quality of sourcing is improved. And will continue to seek more nationally known sources. The subject was notable when she starred along Catherine Zeta-Jones in The Rebound and alongside Miley Cyrus in Hannah Montana She was widely known and notable when she starred in cable shows and on Lifetime channel. She was notable enough to appear in major newspapers like the LA Times. She retains that notability. Please keep an open mind, since this is not.. and will not be the same article which was nominated. I can see how a WP:BEFORE might have missed things Lubbad85 (☎) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what you're adding is not sources about Gould, it's sources which glancingly namecheck Gould's existence in the process of being about other people. As I said above, a film review doesn't automatically support an actor's notability just because her name gets mentioned in the cast list — it supports her notability if it analyzes her performance in detail, not if it just mentions her name. Similarly, an article whose core subject is Pamela Adlon or Nicole Sullivan or Brooke Elliott does not support Gould's notability just because it happens to mention Gould's name as a castmate of the article's actual subject — it only supports Gould's notability if Gould herself is the subject. The notability test for an actor is not "roles can be listed and technically verified": it is "the actor has been the subject of reliable source coverage about her having of roles". Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat We all pretty much stated our views on the article and positions regarding notability. I understand your points. I do not think you are right on policy, but I understand your concerns. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am right on policy, though. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a really tough article to determine notability on. There's a very good argument she meets WP:NACTOR, but WP:NACTOR doesn't trump WP:GNG, and she definitively fails WP:GNG. The only article I've seen that's specifically on her which doesn't cover her in a passing mention is the Jewish Journal article, but that's in their "Graduation" section, which profiles young people graduating from high school, and I don't think counts towards Wikipedia notability - they profile a number of people every year. Even if it did, there are no other articles I can find which cover her significantly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If all the sources allow us to do is list off her (mostly minor) roles, that's not enough to hang an article on. Even if the article were to be kept, all the unsourced BLP, including her birthdate, would need to be removed. Her reluctance to say the word "asshole" is practically the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with SportingFlyer. Despite the apparent abundance of sources present in the article, the WP:GNG is not met at all. As stated, only the first one, from the Jewish Journal, has any sort of extensive coverage on the individual at all. The vast majority only mention her when listing cast members of a particular show or movie, and provide absolutely no meaningful discussion at all. The rest are from sites that can not be used as a reliable secondary source, such as IMDB. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see some coverage of her, not just her roles. Its not a lot, but it is there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2019 (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.