Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piercey Dalton

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. Star Mississippi 18:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piercey Dalton[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)

No media coverage for this actress. The best is a passing mention in a film review by The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Vancouver Film Critics Circle is significant enough that being nominated for its awards counts as a strong notability claim. While I'll grant that there are a few actresses listed in Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film who don't have articles yet, that constitutes an important enough award that every actress listed in it has to be eligible for an article as soon as somebody deigns to get around to it. There can be no such thing as an actress who is listed in that article yet is somehow not notable nevertheless. Inadequacy of sourcing is certainly a valid concern if the notability claim is "she exists"; it is not a valid concern if the notability claim hinges on one or more significant WP:ANYBIO-passing awards. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". She has only been nominated once. Further, almost no media coverage = failure of WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not necessarily have to be nominated multiple times for awards before they're notable: one Academy Award nomination is enough, one Grammy Award nomination is enough, one Juno Award nomination is enough, one Canadian Screen Award nomination is enough, and on and so forth. "Several times" might come into play for the kind of award where it may be possible to source that a person was submitted for consideration, but the adjudicating committee reveals absolutely nothing further until they're announcing the winner, such as the Nobel Prizes — but for an award that curates and announces a shortlist of three, four or five finalists between the "submission of all eligible candidates" and "announcement of the final winner" phases of the process, making the shortlist once is enough, because being picked and named to a shortlist of finalists is already a significant distinction over and above most other peers in and of itself.

And GNG is irrelevant if the person has an inherent notability claim: if an actress going for "notable because roles were had", then obviously they have to be shown to pass GNG, but if they're going for "shortlisted for a major, inherently notable award" then as long as the award nomination is properly sourced any other sourcing problems are for refimprove to worry about, not AFD. This is the same as how as long as a politician is properly verified as having held a role that passes WP:NPOL #1, their article is kept even if its current state of sourcing is otherwise inadequate — the role is important and significant enough that having some information about the person, even if there's not as much as we would wish for, is still mission critical enough that an article in that boat has to be kept and flagged for improvement and cannot be deleted outright.

I'll grant that there are a few people in Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film who don't have articles yet, but that's only because nobody's gotten around to them yet — there can be nobody whose name is present in that list yet is still somehow "not notable at all" for some other reason. The award is notable and important enough that every actress in its article has to either already have an article now or be eligible to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to them, and there can be absolutely no such thing as "named in that article yet still off limits as an article topic". Every single person named in that article has to be either "already a blue link now" or "will be a blue link as soon as somebody takes them on", with no "this person just can't have an article at all" exceptions. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Film Critics Circle award is not well-known. This is several steps below the Genie Awards, so your claim that one nomination is enough is dubious, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to quantify how "well-known" a film award is or isn't is a mug's game — awards that are well-known in one country can be not well-known in another and vice versa, so trying to quantify "how well-known is well-known enough" is not a useful debate to have at all. Even the Canadian Screen Awards (why would you backdate that to the defunct-for-a-decade Genies?) could be argued as "not well-known", if your baseline for "well-known" hinged on expecting somebody to prove that they were as famous in Argentina or Indonesia as the Academy Awards are, instead of simply whether they represent a significant and noteworthy distinction within their home country; and the César Awards in France could be argued as "not well-known" if you're arguing from the vantage point of India instead of France; and the Japan Academy Film Prize could be argued as "not well-known" if you only concern yourself with how much coverage they do or don't receive in Germany while discounting any coverage from Japan; and on and so forth.
So we don't care about subjective, geolocated opinions on whether a film award is "well-known to you" or not, we care only about whether the award is notable and properly sourced, which the VFCCs certainly are. (It's also the only Canadian film critics association that presents "actor in Canadian film" awards at all — the TFCA and the AQCC both just present one overall "Best Canadian Film" award each and don't adjudicate individual performances within them, which means VFCC is the only film critics association award it's even possible for an actor in a Canadian film to win or be nominated for.) Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Canadian, so your argument doesn't hold water. And to reiterate, one nomination for an alleged "well-known" award, one I can't recall ever hearing about in the media, is not even close to sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this award fills some perceived gap is irrelevant; do your axe-grinding somewhere else. As for why I cited the Genies, those are the ones I actually do remember reading about in the newspapers and seeing on TV. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not grinding any axes, I'm simply stating facts. Trying to quantify how "well-known" is "well-known enough" is not a thing we do (in fact, we have explicit rules against inserting arbitrary cutoffs into notability criteria), precisely because it's too prone to "well, it can't be well-known if I've never heard of it" — so what we do is we follow the sources. If an award has sufficient reliable source coverage to establish it as notable, which the VFCC articles plainly demonstrate that they do, then those sources secure the award as notable whether you've personally heard of it or not — and if the award is notable, then its winners and nominees establish notability by winning or being nominated for it. The cutoff does not require multiple nominations — one Academy Award nomination is enough, one Canadian Screen Award nomination is enough, one Juno Award nomination is enough, one Governor General's Award nomination is enough, one Toronto Film Critics Association nomination is enough, and on and so forth, because these are awards that curate and announce shortlists of finalists between the "consideration of all submissions" and "announcement of the final winner" phases of the process, which means the nomination itself already represents a distinction over and above most of the nominee's peers.

It doesn't matter whether you can personally recall having heard about an award in the media or not — the award's article plainly demonstrates that it has media coverage, which means that if you haven't heard about it that's because you either missed or haven't chosen to consume the media that was covering it. And that's precisely why we don't bog down in subjective debates about how "well-known" people think something is or isn't, and simply follow the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope of getting input from other editors as well as the two contributing to date.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to initial Deletion nom statement, there is further media coverage (I've added a few references since the Deletion nom). There are even a few more but since they are for work already referenced it seemed overkill to add them on top. A small article is going to have a smaller number of refs. Certainly toward the lighter end of coverage but given there's a few lead roles, with media coverage praise for her performance along with a nomination from notable award, seems worth keeping to me. My first time partaking in such discussion so hope I've done it right. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the additional coverage added by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck adds up to GNG. Deadline [1] has a mere-mention in a cast listing, Times Colonist [2] is another mere-mention, Flickering Myths [3] coverage of Dalton is limited to the half-sentence [Open House] delivers a thoroughly tedious, uninspired feature debut for filmmaking duo Matt Angel and Suzanne Coote, abjectly wasting the efforts of talented leads Dylan Minnette and Piercey Dalton in the process.. Finally we have Occhi Magazine [4], which at first glance looks like great coverage; except that they're a PR firm and say this about themselves on their website: As practicing artists and creatives, we appreciate the work and value of creatives. We know the importance the creative industries play in society and the social and economic benefits they provide. We celebrate creativity and encourage appreciation for the arts. We provide a tailored service to a wide variety of industry stakeholders, clients, and publicists but also work directly with musicians, visual artists, and creative professionals, building strategic PR and marketing campaigns across all media platforms. So it's not independent and not worth the pixels it's printed on, notability-wise. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:10, 1 June 2023 (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.