Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Lenti (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 01:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Lenti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Is this voice actor's article sufficiently sourced? —S Marshall T/C 11:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any offence caused. At the time, the article had lots of instances of labelling Lenti as an 'actress'. This threw me, hence the erroneous tag. I've changed 'actress' to 'actor' now as this is clearly Lenti's preferred term and also appears to be standard practice for similar cases. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+There also isn't any specific tag re: gender for a variety of reasons, and why the article was written (at least to start) as Actress - but that's not the reason for this review - so tl;dr - don't stress about it. That's on me for not being more confident in my editing. I'll leave a comment addressing the AfD overall shortly. Canadianerk (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note upfront, any unaware eyes, that I was the person who initiated the deletion review, and rewrote a significant portion of the article - and restored the article to mainspace. So, please view my comments through those lenses as you will. That aside - concern over the sourcing was just resolved in the talk page, leaving me more than a tad confused. The discussion was initiated when a wikipedian blanked all twitter/facebook sources, and the end result/consensus (from my understanding, at least) was that a good chunk of sourcing was not ideal, but leaving the maintenance tag was an acceptable compromise. Now - why I'm commenting before voting - I need to know if you already read that discussion S Marshall, and whether you were dissatisfied with the result, and preferably an answer why this couldn't have been discussed further there, and required an AfD. I am more than willing to - if necessary - elaborate on my defense from there if necessary, or rephrase/repeat for clarity, but need to know that upfront, before starting my Oppose defense. Canadianerk (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: I have read the deletion review and the concern about sourcing on the article's talk page which you characterize as "resolved". I differ from you about that. With all due respect, this concern clearly isn't resolved. It is not okay to source biographies of living people to Twitter. But my starting point is that I'm not convinced we should have a standalone article about Lenti at all. The matter would be clear if they passed the thresholds at WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO but they do not, and I'm not seeing the level of reliable sources that would justify a pass of WP:BASIC. So I've nominated this at AfD for others' views. I'm looking for clear evidence of notability here.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are you requesting that the article be deleted for lack of notability? Discussing the subject's gender preferences should be on the regular talk page. Same with content within the article, whether certain entries should be included/excluded in the subject's filmography. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm expressing a general concern about the article's sources. In terms of Wikipedian rules, this amounts to both WP:N and WP:V. In terms of WP:V I'm saying that everything in the article is "challenged", so if it isn't given an inline citation to a reliable source, I may remove it after the AfD; and in terms of WP:N I'm saying that if I remove everything that doesn't have an inline citation to a reliable source, then what remains doesn't amount to an article.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to both of your comments, Marshall - per WP:BLPSPS, WP:A&M/RS, WP:FACEBOOK and WP:TWITTER-EL, self published primary sources are useable on Wikipedia, and it's explicitly written in WP:BLP they are to be avoided unless written (and verified to be written) by the subject of the Wikipedia article. They are. In the worst possible scenario for the article's content, where the filmography must be without any twitter sources, there are still 4 lead/main character roles with secondary sources, only losing 1 - still meeting WP:NACTOR. -Canadianerk (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison to the previous AFD, they now have convention appearances in 2019 and 2021 according to Fancons. https://fancons.com/guests/bio/6738/marissa-lenti I still have yet to see any regular news articles to be written about them though. Can you present some of those? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak to conventions or their relevance, but I'll provide what info I can about secondary coverage. The closest I got to "regular" news articles are in the article - an interview at a convention with a small (at best) anime outlet and one with voyagedallas. I couldn't find any other interviews that weren't a podcast or a youtube video. They're the basis for the biography section of the article, as English voice actors still (5 years later) really don't get secondary coverage - I've been relying on NACTOR from the deletion review forward. -Canadianerk (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding primary sourcing, you should use secondary first, and then consider primary closing credits, cast announcements (from director or organization), press releases. I would not use Twitter unless the title has the person's name is officially credited in the closing credits without specific role, and then the voice actor is tweeting to clarify their role. If the sole source for the credit is the resume/website/tweet, then hold off from adding those to the table. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the process - went to secondary sources first - ANN, then Funimation blog, etc. The majority of tweet sources in the filmography are replaceable with cite episode. That progress began prior to this AfD, in the aftermath of the talkpage discussion. At time of creation, I was not familiar nor comfortable with the cite episode template, so it wasn't something I utilized when initially writing the article. I started learning, motivated by the talkpage discussion, and took a break from Lenti to work on some drafts. I learned the template with practice in draftspace, and already replaced a few cite tweet sources this past week on Lenti, it's in the page history. My approach since across all articles has always been to try to turn to cite episode/av media to avoid tweet sources, because I learned very quickly that there are wikipedians who take serious concern with them. Now, we're here - debating the same issue which can be fairly easily resolved. -Canadianerk (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strikethrough'd "the majority" as that has proven not to be the case. What remains are either not replaceable pending a news article/interview generating a secondary source, or are an anime awaiting a home video release - Link20XX was right in the talkpage comments. I will keep looking, but options to reduce further are limited. -Canadianerk (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The VoyageDallas one is mostly Q&A primary but it's at least something that wasn't coming from within the production company's media. If you find others, that will help. See Trina Nishimura's article where she did get some external news sources from Dallas and other areas that cover her career. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some poking around in local media and found this. I admit I am not familiar with this too much, so I will keep looking. Link20XX (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Full disclosure: I was involved with creation) Keep I think Lenti clearly meets WP:NACTOR. Lenti has major roles as Yuna (the main character even) in Kuma Kuma Kuma Bear, Shoko Majima in Kokkoku, Chiaki Hoshinomori in Gamers!, and as Alicia Florence in Aria. Disputes about content should be resolved on the talk page rather than AfD. Link20XX (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to which independent, reliable sources did they portray these characters? What did the critics and reviewers think about their performance?—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I don't get why you are requiring secondary sources as WP:V just requires a source to verify, but I already found secondary sources so I'm not going to waste my time going down that road. Kuma Kuma Kuma Bear: [1], Aria the Animation [2], Kokkoku [3], Gamers! [4]. Link20XX (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors and other WP:ENTERTAINERs clearly states they are notable if the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;". Link20XX has given clear examples of this. Dream Focus 06:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (was involved in creation) - seconding Dream Focus and Link20XX. Additional reasoning: This conversation didn't need an AfD - concerns about sourcing can and should have been addressed in other ways. Nominator is arguing for a higher standard than is the norm and making claims which aren't supported by the evidence - policy references to date that have been presented, in my opinion, failed to justify this strict approach. The article can (and will be) improved - and would've regardless of this AfD nomination, the only difference is I'll put all else aside to ensure it happens - starting immediately. -Canadianerk (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy at WP:BLP is clear that I should be very firm on the use of good sources. As an alternative to deletion, I will be content to return this to draft space for you until you have finished sourcing it properly?—S Marshall T/C 10:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the offer of an alternative, sincerely - but that just isn't a solution that would work if you and anguswolf maintain your positions - especially when what remains are mostly unreplaceable at the moment - I'll address that below. First, anguswolf's point on Lenti's talk page, that there is the very limited exception for use of a tweet source: Pokemon-style credits, where actors are just listed without roles attached - a practice which is increasingly rare and limited, and one which isn't common practice amongst any of the major anime dub producers anymore. In video games, it's more prevalent - but this is a discussion about someone who is primarily an anime voice actor. Even then, it's an exemption which isn't wikipedia nor wikiproject policy, and it only applies to Lenti on possibly one credit - Super Hxeros, which utilizes Lenti's resume for a second character, with a secondary source stating the first.
    To illustrate the current status of the Lenti article, I just sorted through every cite tweet/facebook source in the article, and removed all I could find a replacement for. There are 19 left: 3 are for the biography subsection (birthday, pronouns, when Lenti started as a director at Sound Cadence) which shouldn't be an issue at all; 3 sources weren't replaced because I cannot legally access a cast list (if there even is one) without buying something; 3 remain because the home video for those shows aren't out (2/3 have release dates, subject to change); 8 of the sources are likely to remain self credited pending a change in how a company operates (two are mobile games, 6 are tied just to Heroes of Newerth); The Silver Guardian's tweet source wasn't replaced because the english cast wasn't credited in the uncut (home video) release at all; and Konosuba Film's credit cannot be replaced until a home video release is announced and released, which remains up in the air for the foreseeable future.
    I maintain that these are not ideal sources, nor ones I prefer, but that they are a necessity if they are going to be credited for these roles on wikipedia, until Funimation, Crunchyroll and others change their practices to post an episode-by-episode complete cast list online, or every anime receives a home video release with full credit. Neither of these are guaranteed, nor necessarily common practice. It also affects the rare but occasional recasts for the home video vs simuldub editions of shows, where if the HV via cite episode is the only source, actors can lose credit from no fault of their own. Funimation used to do the former, but that stopped being a thing awhile ago. If you aren't on the initial castlist for the first episode, you're out of luck until home video release, or forever - that is why it has become so common practice to ensure they self credit. An example - where a reviewer has to guess because they didn't see the tweet from Lenti. If they included with confidence, the only source they could have gotten it from is the voice director, and/or the actor posting on social media - both sources which have been deemed problematic by this interpretation of policy. The likely consequence of implementing this interpretation you are arguing for, appears to be the mass removal of hundreds of credits across the anime and manga wikiproject, and more AfDs like this one - or continued lax enforcement of this interpretation of these policies. All due respect - my naivety is probably in play here - but it's a result I'm not just going to accept at this point in the discussion. A request - if this discussion continues, can you please point to the specific WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:BLPSPS policy that you believe these sources are violating? Just stating that BLP is violated because it isn't a "good source" isn't something I can discuss nor defend. -Canadianerk (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, let me define what I mean by a "good source" in this context. It's a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. (I've taken this phrasing directly from WP:REPUTATION.)
    I can see from what you say above that we're experiencing a fundamental clash of philosophies here. Your position is that there's information that you can't include without referencing Lenti's twitter feed or other similarly low-quality sources, and my position is that material that isn't based on good sources must, and should, be removed from this biography of a living person.
    I'm fully respectful of the views expressed by you and Link20xx, as the article's authors, and of Dream Focus, but you do need to know that the sources offered so far are way short of the level of reliability that's needed here. Dream Focus has piped up to agree with you, but most Wikipedians who participate in AfD would expect Dream Focus to !vote "keep" on this topic and to opine that virtually any source is adequate. I would urge you to reconsider returning the article to draft space.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to the sources I provided? Because if you are, WP:ANIME/RS considers them reliable after much discussion. Is your only problem the Twitter sources? Because if it is, that can be fixed to an extent, and AfD is not cleanup. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm justifiably confused. If WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:BLPSPS aren't violated, then those policies indicate that this sourcing is allowed to be used in the biography of a living person!? -- I'll start with this: "you do need to know that the sources offered so far are way short of the level of reliability that's needed here." That is not true if there is no violation of the aforementioned policies, which deem them as acceptable sources. You're welcome to have an opinion to the contrary, but that is not what is written in the policy. I take no pleasure disagreeing with a veteran wikipedian, but - that is why I keep asking whether they're actually violated or not - I bring up these policies precisely to indicate a willingness for me to learn and take appropriate action on the article. I removed as many cite tweet sources as possible without removing info from the article, to further demonstrate this.
    Your point that "most Wikipedians who participate in AfD would expect Dream Focus to !vote "keep" on this topic and to opine that virtually any source is adequate", and that Link20XX and myself are expressing a different philosophy doesn't change what is Wikipedia policy and what isn't. I agree to some extent - I think it's clear we have our differences. We agree they aren't preferable sources. But Dream Focus and Link20XX cited NACTOR as their reason for keeping the article - while I 100% agree with that, I think I've put a fair amount of time and effort into trying to understand your view, and repeatedly asking for the policy which endorses your perspective, and sought additional reasons to keep the article. Instead, you're citing WP:REPUTATION - a consequences of sockpuppeting article? The redirect you linked specifically discusses "SPI" (Sock Puppet Investigations), I couldn't find anything related to what you're saying - there is no mention of primary sources in that article. You're claiming that a tweet from x actor states that they play x character in x show, requires interpretation, and their use indicates that Wikipedians using them are violating original research/interpretation rules? -How? My comment above was an overly long explanation why I believe there's often no good alternatives to self-published primary sources in these cases, and that I believe that their removal needs to be justified by policy, not opinion - not just leaving the credit locked off of wikipedia because of the whims of companies. I've argued that they should be evaluated based on WP:BLPSPS and its sibling shortcut - that is it. It is not my opinion that X was cast in y role, it's an opinion formed based on my understanding of the policy. I'm confused why that triggered this response, unless you're intending to accuse me of something. I've intended from the start to operate in good faith, which is why I've devoted the time to expressing my understand of policies, held off voting for awhile to give you some time to express your arguments, and have asked multiple times to hear about how these sources violate WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:BLPSPS. And now, if there is a violation, why is it so serious that the whole article should be deleted or returned to drafts? If you aren't going to argue based on the relevant policy, I don't see a reason to change or soften my position - that the article should stay where it is, as it is. Nor am I going to accept being threatened, whether with a sockpuppet accusation, or that myself and others are posting our own opinions within mainspace articles. -Canadianerk (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't feel attacked. I'm questioning the sources in an article. I have not questioned your integrity or that of anyone else, and for the avoidance of doubt, I make no accusations or allegations about sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, UPE or bad faith editing of any other kind. I do think Dream Focus has a history of poor editorial judgment at AfD, but I think he's in good faith. I don't know what's hard to understand about WP:ANYBIO.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of WP:ANYBIO, though WP:NACTOR is also a valid SNG, which this person has been shown to meet, thus whether they meet ANYBIO is irrelevant. Link20XX (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that anybio is one of several additional criteria under WP:NBIO. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" - including WP:ANYBIO. If Lenti meets WP:NACTOR, none of the additional criteria in that section - including anybio - are necessary. I'd assume it helps if multiple additional criteria are met, but NACTOR is arguably met. If you wish to dispute that, there are at least 5 credits which are arguable to count towards NACTOR: Yuna in Kuma Kuma Kuma Bear, Shoko Majima in Kokkoku, Chiaki Hoshinomori in Gamers!, Alicia Florence in Aria the Animation and Moze, one of 4 playable characters in Borderlands 3. If your position on sources remains and you wish to pursue it instead, again, while I appreciate you took the time to quickly respond to my concern about your comment alleging something, you still haven't addressed whether the sources violate WP:BLPSPS, and why it is such a significant violation that the article should be deleted. Without either of those arguments, I have no reason to change my mind - I'll repeat again, I'm open to doing so. I'm not going to keep asking you to demonstrate, or at least provide some arguments that the specific policies are violated. If you can't or won't do that, there's little point continuing this AfD, unless someone else wishes to chime in and argue either of those points. -Canadianerk (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;
The subject specific guideline for people is at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. And then shows categories for different things. Under WP:ENTERTAINER it shows what makes voice actors notable, as I just stated. I have been in enough AFDs over the years for voice actors to know this is always the case, they are kept if they have major roles in notable series. If three people say keep for this reason, and you S Marshall are the only one saying delete, perhaps you are the one with "poor editorial judgment at this AfD" not me. Dream Focus 17:46, 23 November 2021 (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/Marissa_Lenti_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068853611"