Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonora Moore

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora Moore[edit]

Leonora Moore (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)

Non-notable actress. Ridernyc (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep - This comes one minute after the last nomination by this editor, with no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed and no rationale for deletion presented. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make your deletion case for each, please. Your explanation above is an excellent start. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did they are not notable. If you have sources that establish notability you are more then welcome to present them. Ridernyc (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here's a source...
  • "Actress Leonora Moore Has Finished Shooting Two Features". Crewe Guardian. Retrieved 2011-11-20.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 12:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we get evidence of sustained coverage; a single news story is enough only to qualify a person for WP:BLP1E. By the way, it's possible to produce lots of new pages very rapidly (1) without automation and (2) with prior work. For example, I created the 89 sub-lists of List of Indiana state historical markers in little more than an hour back in March, because I had been working on them offline for a good while. It's quite possible that Ridernyc simply went through BEFORE on all of these nominations, decided that none of these people passed WP:BIO, and then nominated them all together. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I also has suspicions about what was going on but did not realize the total extent until every single AFD notice was placed on the talkpage of a blocked editor. I also wanted the articles to be judged by their merits and not as part of some larger problem. Ridernyc (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Crewe Guardian article cited by Northamerica is a classic example of noncritical that I do not think we have ever accepted as a RS for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep per WP:ENT. To disagree with User:DGG, more-than-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian is exactly what we have always determined and accepted as WP:RS coverage, no matter the topic being discussed, and as a source it is perfectly fine. We have an editor adding poor articles about folks involved with Sparrow (2010 film), and that has ended up being a problem. The more cogent issue at hand is that in its current state the srticle on Leonora Moore's career is mostly for her role in Sparrow. But an actor's career rarely sits still, and they sometimes use other names. Now receiving coverage is the just SXSW-screened[1] film The Taiwan Oyster (itself arguably itself notable under guideline and simply needing an article),[2] in which she has a significant role of "Nikita"[3] under the name "Leonora Lim".[4] With this second film now screened and reciving coverage enough to be determined as itself notable, WP:ENT is met. In ignoring its colored past, the stub article can be expanded and improved accordingly, and be allowed to then grow with the actress's career. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is one thing; its local editions are another. It is not without thorough consideration that I disagree with MQS in this subject field; I have almost never done so previously. But I think it is time that we stop accepting as a mater of course the generally indiscriminate coverage of local personalities in local newspapers. There is one field we have already done so: book reviews of books by local authors are rarely accepted as sources for notability, in contrast to reviews in regional or national newspapers, as experience shows they will do such a review for anyone coming from their town whose pr firm sends them a copy. (And I think in sports we don't accept local news coverage of local high school athletes as showing notability either)
Otherwise, MQS's argument is that she will soon become more notable. In that case, a new article can be written, by somebody other than an apparent publicist for one of her films. If MSW thinks this is already sufficient, I'd appreciate it if he rewrote the article appropriately & I doubt anyone would oppose it. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MSW? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why start over later? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the nominator and DGG are quite proper to worry about a publicist writing about their clients, I would think that now that they have been blocked, the issue becomes more a matter of how to deal with their contributions rather than simply delete all of them out-of-hand. On some of Ridernyc's other nominations, I gladly agree that some other articles may certianly have been premature, but in this case I did my research, found the growing career of a very interesting person, and set about addressing issues. While the stub that was first nominated looked pretty bad, it no longer does. A little work [5] has given the project a fleshed-out article with context, content, and suitable assertions of notability. While certainly not perfect, and while her notability is not on the same level as an Oscar winner, I believe that allowing this one to remain and grow over time and through reguklar editing, while at the same time being on watch for a return of the socks, serves the project far better than outright deletion in this instance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have one news story, one story from her own website, and a bunch of articles that don't pay attention to her in depth. None of these amount to significant sustained coverage. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but "in-depth" is not the SIGCOV mandate. However, being more-than-trivial, if not "in-depth" is. Information from her own website is either supported in reliable sources or background info... and as such is not needed for notability but definitely helpful in created a well-rounded BLP. And as sources that do specifically speak about her roles do not do so in a trivial manner, their not being "trivial" meets WP:GNG. That coverage be only "in-depth" coverage, or that coverage be world-wide, or that articles be solely about her, are not guideline nor policy mandates... and the assertion is meeting WP:ENT, and not that her notability is for wide-spread coverage. What we do have is verifiability of her signifcant roles in multiple notable productions, as well as just enough speaking about her in a more-than-than trivial mamnner to present our readers with an encyclopedic article on the the subject. As her acting career is only 3 years old, coverage is exactly what one might expect for a new actress who has only in the last three years had leading roles in notable productions. Per WP:BLP, her lessor roles simply have a place in a well-rounded BLP of this actor. This article can only get better... and in an encyclopedia that knows it is itself imperfect, and understands that it is itself a work-in-progress, our having a basically decent short article, one which can expand and improve over time and through regular editing, would seem to be what building an encyclopedia is all about. Yes? No? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's not famous, but the coverage that exists is adequate. Winner of best feature film at a film fest, promising career, several roles in small features and plays. She may or may not gain greater notoriety, but deletion does not serve to improve the encyclopedia in any way. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:ENT requires significant roles in multiple notable works, which given or readily available third party sources does not establish. WP:FILMMAKER allows for single works (such as EAST in this context), but only if the notability of that work is supported by being "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In this case, EAST does not meet that criteria given available sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • She meets ENT per her signiificant roles in Dark Waters, Sparrow, Untitled, or The Taiwan Oyster... three of which already have articles within these pages (other are waiting). Sure... East might never have an article, but so what? It still merits mention in a proper BLP as her work as a filmmaker. She is not up-and-coming... she has arrived. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the three films that currently have articles here have yet been released in theaters or directly to retail. Given that they are unreleased, they cannot be accepted as roles in notable works. The existence of a WP article for a film does not establish its notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I invite you to re-read WP:Notability (films)#General principles and study the essay WP:OEN, as release in theaters or retail sales, while possibly helpful in finding sources, have little to do with actual notability per Wikipedia notability guidelines, as theatrical release or retail sales is no assurance of a film topic having the requisite coverge in reliable sources. Conversely, festival release can, and often does, win acclaim and coverage. Heck, even internet films that never see the inside of a theater can be found notable through receiving requisite commentary and analysis. And contrary to your belief, the existance of a WP article shows a film has met our notability requirements through coverage and commentary in reliable sources. THAT's how notability, per policy and guideline is determined. Simply put, we do not limit inclusion of film articles to only those that have theatrical release or retail sales. We do not expect low-budget indie films to have the same level of distrbution as their big-budget studio-released breathren. We instead depend on a film, no matter its beginings or background or budget, to have commentary and analysis in multiple reliable sources. Simple. Moore has had significant roles in multiple notable productions... and ENT is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had not read that essay. It's always good to see new perspectives. I did not mean to indicate that the lack of release automatically meant non-notable, but rather that all of these films are intended for release (according to their articles) and have not yet been. As you know, WP:NFF also deals with the issue of not yet released films; but in this case it appears that the films were completed and very likely will be released (and indeed have been given screenings such as at SxSW). As you said, if the movies were released it likely would be easier to find RS for notability. At this time, we have press releases and some reviews but little (reliable, third-party) guidance on the real notability of the films or Ms. Moore's roles.
As to the subject of the existence of an article showing that a film has met notability; as you are an editor who regularly participates here at AfD, I am sure you know that many many articles exist that do not meet that standard. Sometimes they eventually do get notable, sometimes they languish for years, sometimes they get PRODed, and sometimes they end up here. For instance, the existence of the Leonora Moore article does not establish notability. That's why we are discussing it.
I started off my response to this AfD as a keep, but the further I dug the more convinced I was of a delete. The pieces of notability and RS don't fit and the whole set of articles is kind of a house of cards, each supporting one another. Thank you for your thoughtful responses, and I look forward to the next!--Tgeairn (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy articles about The Taiwan Oyster in such as Variety and The China Post and Taipei Times and Austin Chronicle speak strongly toward its notability, whether it ever has "theatrical" release or not. Inre WP:NFF: what matters is that a film DID have public screenings and coverage in reliable sources. WP:NFF would be applicable ONLY if a completed film somehow disappeared and was never seen... and sometimes even then, exceptions to that guideline are welcome, as no guideline is an absolute if it prevents improving the project. But I digress. Back to WP:ENT: We have an individual who barely pushes at WP:GNG, but whose life and backgound can be verified in a reliable soirce, and who is verifiable as having significant or lead roles in several notable productions. Consideration of her meeting WP:ENT is not a house of cards, but reasonable application of the policies and guidelines which allows us to build an encyclopedia... one which includes even minor notables... as Wikipedia is not about only the "most notable", but is also about topics "notable enough". Yes, her notability is not as strong as DeNiro or other long-careered, seasoned pros... but it IS just barely enough so we can allow the article on her to remain and grow over time and through regular editing. We have a young woman who graduated from University of Oxford's Wadham College with a four-year Masters Degree in physics, specializing in astrophysics and particle physics. After being exposed to acting while living in Japan, she turned her mind to more acting and to filmmaking. Her parents must be acimonious, but I for one, will not predict nor anticipate failure. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:25, 7 June 2012 (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/Leonora_Moore&oldid=1088293804"