Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Erikson

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, per WP:HEY. Skomorokh 12:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Erikson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP for a non-notable actress. "Best known for" role is a recurring minor character not mentioned in the article for the show. No reliable sources provided, none found. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The best references I could find were this article from Variety and this article from Richmond Times-Dispatch. Although she is the subject of both sources, neither qualify as "significant coverage" of her. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:ENT ("significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") and meeting WP:BIO ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability") per the sources found by User:Cunard... two is multiple. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:ENT implies notability. However, no subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, two is "multiple", but the coverage is in no way substantial. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respects to User:SummerPhD... WP:BIO says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". No where in these two sentences is the word "implied". Moving down to WP:ENT, it says "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Again, no where in this sentence is the word "implied". The multiple significant roles are verifiable. That meets WP:ENT. WP:V does not itself have to be substantial... just verifiable. He is covered in more-than-trivial, even if less-than-sunstantial, fashion in multiple reliable sources. This meets WP:BIO. Again, and with continued respects to you, by your asssertion, one would have to somehow read that even the multiple sources as allowed by the second caveat of WP:BIO would have to themselves be substantial... even though no where does the caveat demand "significant and in depth". If that were true there would be no need for that caveat, as it would be redundent. I see the caveat there because it recognizes and allows that substantial is not always available. Yes substantial coverage is always preferred, but if lacking, WP:BIO specifically allows multiple, less-than-significant coverage, as long the coverage is not trivial. I am unable to read WP:BIO in any other way than how it is written. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. (When in the edit screen, my use of italics apparently looked like I was claiming the guideline used the word "implies". I do not claim that, I claim it implies as stated.) Meeting WP:BIO implies that the subject may be notable. Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no subject is notable. Yes, less-than-substantial coverage in individual sources can be overcome by the use of multiple sources. However, we start with wanting significant coverage in independent reliable sources, find that this subject has no sources with substantial coverage and is barely covered in the two sources we do have. Do we have substantial coverage? No, nor do we have sources to combine to make up the multiple sources adding up to substantial coverage. We have insubstantial coverage in two sources. If there are more sources, we might have something. At present, we do not. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respects to User:SummerPhD... Yes, WP:BIO is a guideline and not a policy. So is WP:GNG. Since the article passes all applicable policies, we need then move to guideline to determine if it merits inclusion. If every BLP were mandated to ALWAYS meet WP:GNG there would be absolutely no reason for WP:BIO and the subordinant inclusion criteria to even exist. WP:GNG is not meant to be exclusionary. The subsequent inclusionary criteria of WP:BIO were set in place for those instances where WP:GNG might not be met. Not meeting one guideline is not an ipso-facto failure of another. Wikipedia does not demand that all articles be perfect, nor does it demand they be made perfect immediately. As the subject meets WP:BIO and WP:ENT, and the article has the potential to be further improved and so improve WIkipedia through the course of normal editing and over the course of the actress' career, I have opined a keep. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen it doesn't matter one iota which is a guideline or policy, per the essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion, section: That's only a guideline or essay

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

The importance is how convincing your arguments are, not whether something is or is not a guideline or policy. Ikip (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Sigh, I know how the deletion game works. Nominator states it is not notable. Editor provides references, nominator says it is not enough references, editor provides more references, nominator then says those references are trivial. So here are around 30 more google news references to the "couple".[1] lets start arguing triviality now. WP:BIO and WP:ENT are much, much less controversial than WP:N is. But the article well sourced, meeting all guidelines, including notability, so that also is irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ditto on the "deletion game" problem here. --Milowent (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator the article has gone through significant improvements, with several added references, since it was nominated for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article well sourced but needs expansion. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. For Hollywood actors I look to Variety and she has numerous mentions there, many trivial as one would expect of an aspiring career but coupled with the voluminous number of roles in notable films I'm loathe to consider her career as anything but emerging. I haven't trolled through the thousands of possible sources here but I have little doubt that enough can be brought together to build a good article. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this talk about passing WP:ENT is a smokescreen. She hasn't had significant roles. "stripper #2", "desk clerk", "hot girl", "girlfriend" and "various" are not significant roles. Nor is appear in 5 episodes of an 86 episode series. And "mentions" in significant magazines aren't significant coverage. A 256 word article from her hometown paper (Richmond Time) saying she got an insignificant role in a TV show? That isn't significant coverage. A 2 sentence announcement of a role in Variety isn't significant. And the announcement isn't even accurate. It says a "lead" role. She is billed below "full figured neighbor" and barely ahead of "weather woman" and "Henderson twin #1". Maybe some day she will be notable, but it hasn't happened yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2009 (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.