Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maisie Williams

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 Keep. There seems to be a concenus that there are just enough sources to fulfill the GNG. We judge the notability of a topic against the sources that exist not the sources in an article; however, it would be best to add more sources so we do not need to rehash these arguments in a few months time. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maisie Williams[edit]

Maisie Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One role. Fails WP:ENT. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has a bare-bones place-holder at TV.com, a blog-ish entry on accesshollywood.com (i.e., web-only, not part of the show; an interview about the character, with no meaningful information about Williams), an interview in TV Guide (again, an interview about the character, with no meaningful information about Williams), a bare mention in the zaptoit blog and minor coverage in the Telegraph, calling it "a small part". Where is this significant coverage about Williams, the subject of this article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is significant in sum total. A distinction between coverage of the character and the actress playing it, in the context of interviewing or describing the actress, isn't tenable. Even people who are highly notable for their professional status may have scant attention paid to their personal lives. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, saying that the TV guide interview [1] is "about the character, with no meaningful information about Williams" just isn't true. For example,

"I describe Arya as quite feisty, a tomboy," she says. "She likes to break the rules and doesn't really like being how everyone thinks she should be. I like playing outside and messing around. When I was in primary school my best friend was a boy and we always goofed around, climbed trees, got holes in my trousers and muddied all my tops and things like that, a complete nightmare for the washing, but great fun. I would always put a bit of Maisie into everything."

This material clearly pertains to the actress herself. I suggest examining the sources more carefully. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the reliable sources, we have: her birthdate, she had this one role and she likes to play around outside. I assume a biopic based on this is not yet in the works. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Comment The point is that her received coverage in reliable sources is what makes her notable. The fact that you're not impressed by her achievements is irrelevant. For An Angel (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing whatsoever to say about her achievement. Guidelines do not call for "coverage", they call for substantial coverage sufficient to write a reasonably detailed article. We do not have that. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per WP:TOOSOON to Game of Thrones. One role fails WP:ENT. Any coverage of her at all at this point is all for her first and only role in that series, making this a WP:BLP1E. A merge and redirect sends readers to the place where she can be written of in context to that one event for which she is receiving coverage. No prejudice against the redireect being reverted and the article expanded and sourced once her career advances and she has additional significant roles in multiple notable projects and the BLP1E no longer exists. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, the (in)famous WP:BLP1E. It states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." However, an actress who appears in a nationally distributed television series has assumed the role of a public figure, who is high-profile by definition. BLP1E protects people against having notability thrust upon them through some unfortunate event, and protects Wikipedia against unremarkable people trying to thrust their notability upon us with publicity-seeking. Articles on such individuals would be inappropriate in either case. However, people such as actors/actresses on national television, politicians holding national or state offices of any sort, mayors of cities, and so on have stepped, legitimately, into the public arena. If we have enough material in RS for articles on such people, we should have the articles. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all we need then is a source that states she is contracted or considered for another project and which speaks about her in that context to eliminate the BLP1E consideration. By our anticipating without sources that she would continue to have growing career past this one role we engage in prophecy, specially as there have been some great young actors who have had a terrific role and yet for various reasons did not continue in their careers. Admitedly, it is just as much crystal balling to assert her career will not advance as to assert it will, but as this is a BLP, and she a minor child, if we err it should be on the side of caution. And as a quite decent BLP1E that has potential to become more than one event, we have those guidelines and policies that instruct some of the ways in which to deal with such. As she is currently covered for just the one event, a merge and redirect protects the article history, preserves the information, and allows the redirect to be undone and the article returned and expanded and sourced if or when the career advances or she recieves sigcov for some other event. The public arena point is well made, but as a minor child, that choice of arena is by law more her parents'. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as author. The third-party coverage cited in the article is sufficiently detailed (though not by much) to be the basis of a brief article; WP:BIO does not require more. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable because, as mentioned above, all actresses are public figures whose notability derives from the roles they play and the coverage these roles receive.  Sandstein  15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of repeating myself, "From the reliable sources, we have: her birthdate, she had this one role and she likes to play around outside." If that's a "reasonably detailed" biography, I'm 39 1/2 feet tall. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets wp:BIO, although just barely. However, with season 2 of Game of Thrones coming she will receive more newspaper attention and no doubt additional sources will pop up. There are also several interviews with her [2][3], which do nothing for notability but could be used to flesh out the article. Yoenit (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or smerge There is nothing substantial to say about her, other than this one role. A redirect would send any unlikely searchers to the only thing notable about her. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin: Note that this user is also the nom, so should not be double-counted. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep & Comment Wiki traffic stats (try stats) show the page consistently generating 500–1000 views per day, and peaking at a monthly total of 27,000 hits during August 2011. That’s an awful lot of “unlikely searchers” and similar to, or more than for, many well-established artistes with long careers behind them; eg. from the same GoT cast; Charles Dance and Julian Glover. If you are meaning to imply that the entry is of no interest to people, the number of page viewings would clearly indicate otherwise. C-beams (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, and failing an SNG is not a sufficient cause for deletion. We don't need more biographical details to write on her: just because she's a person, doesn't mean a Wikipedia article necessarily needs all the elements of a traditional biography. In this case, she has great coverage for one role, so per WP:NPOV, we cover her based on how she's covered in the RS'es, which is as a well-received child actress. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I've added two more independent, non-trivial RS'es discussing Williams. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, in addition to knowing her birthdate, she had this one role and she likes to play around outside, we know when (in relative terms) one scene with her in it was filmed and that the executive producers of the show like her. My neice's report on what she did this summer had considerably more depth. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Alessandra Napolitano above. It may be only one role, but we know she is coming back for at least one more year, and it is a pretty key role in a blockbuster TV drama. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This key roll in this blockbuster seems to have drawn little attention. Heck, for such a huge, pivotal role Wikipedia has joined the reliable sources in having little to say about it. List of Game of Thrones episodes has this to say, "Ned leaves his home in Winterfell with his daughters Sansa and Arya..." and "...Sansa dreams of life as a queen, while Arya envisions a far different future." Nothing more. To be fair, Game of Thrones (TV series) mentions her twice: once (at Game_of_Thrones_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters) in a listing of five kids and again (at Game_of_Thrones_(TV_series)#Season_1) at the tail end of a list of cast members. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why do you want her deleted, rather than her coverage in those articles expanded to match what RS'es say about her elsewhere? Arguing with every poster in an AfD who disagrees with your position doesn't generally help, at least as far as I've seen. You've said your peace, most people don't agree, and you yourself have modified your position from "delete" to "redirect or smerge". At this point, there are zero !voters arguing for deletion, yet this AfD is still open, vs. a merge discussion being conducted on a talk page. Why? Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources say virtually nothing about her, the subject of this article. (What they say about the character is not about her.) I "changed" to smerge after this AfD was closed and the closing admin decided to add a redirect. Someone cried foul (as the consensus was to delete). I was asked to comment in that regard when this AfD was re-opened. Redirects are cheap. You want to redirect a non-notable actor to their only role? knock yourself out. If you want an article about every actor who has one (apparently minor) role, a birth date and likes to play outside? That's something else. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is important here (at least to me) is that more coverage will be forthcoming, as that one role happens to be a recurring role on a critically aclaimed ongoing series attracting millions of viewers. If she had one role a decade ago and was not heard of since I would argue for merge, as wp:PERMASTUBs are a bad thing. However, Season 2 begins in April and some of the accompying coverage will focus on her, especially as her character plays a more important role in the story (10 Arya chapters in book 2, vs 5 in book 1). I am also curious what your opinion is on Isaac Hempstead-Wright. Is he suddenly notable because he had another role, even though information from reliable sources is just as limited as for Maisie? Yoenit (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add it to the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2011 (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/Maisie_Williams&oldid=1088095154"