Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Harrington

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 delete. While it was challenging to wade through this discussion with all the SPAs, ultimately there is consensus that the sourcing available for this individual is not yet sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. This is a young actress, so it is plausible that if she continues her acting career successfully, more sources will become available to satisfy GNG in the future. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 02:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Harrington[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Also reads like a resume for a very young actress. Very likely too soon for this one. KidAd talk 17:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no external relationship with this page or any page I helped work on. I wanted to try my hand at Wikipedia. I worked hard on this to be accurate and thorough and I have not done many because it is a lot of work. The actor is well established over many years and known throughout the region and country. I believe the page has strong merit which is why I spent time on it. I took a great deal of time researching all the sourcing and I think my work was very beneficial to the entire Wikipedia community. If there are issues on formatting I would hope someone else would make those corrections. But the information is completely valid and merits publication. Mywiki2664 talk 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Mywiki2664 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - It is interesting to note that the article creator is a single purpose account that also created the article on her sister Brigid Harrington. All of their edits have to do with promoting these two sisters. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. Brigid Harrington will need a careful look after this page is dealt with. KidAd talk 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 - Re: citations - The majority of the sources for this article are are either dead links; mention her only in two words that are her first & last name; she is not mentioned at all in several sources; are blogs/local -- only a few are usable. I also find it curious that the article creator uploaded the first image of one of the sisters in 2013 (for a photo shot in 2011) as "own work" and continued to upload photos of them over the years, yet claims they do not have a COI or UPE. Now we have a brand-new editor !voting who signed up yesterday, their vote was their first edit -- how on earth did a brand new editor find this page? I am not necessarily saying that the article should be deleted at this time, but something about this strikes me as very odd. Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 - Re: Comment 2 - Hi, @Netherzone:. Thanks for including me in the discussion. I want to respond to your valid concerns. I am a new member of the Wikipedia community. I set up an account yesterday because I am interested in Wikipedia. I live in the Nashville, TN area, and don't know or have ever met this article's subject. I spent time on Wikipedia before and after creating my account navigating for items of interest. I suppose the answer to your question, "how on earth did a brand new editor find this page?" is "I don't know. Blind luck, I guess." My goal was to learn and participate, not to fall into controversy. With that said, I have observations that are admittedly partially guided by my novice status. It seems that there are problems with this article that relate to form and references. Clearly, some references should be pruned or clarified because they do not provide insight into the subject matter beyond a passing reference to the subject. However, despite not being a famous A-list performer, the subject's career arc does seem notable to me. "Notable" is, of course, subjective, which is what makes conversations like this challenging. I want to express that I don't believe this article rises to the level of deletion. Thank you again, and I look forward to learning more and becoming a valuable part of this community.
Comment 3 Addendum - Woops. Noob mistake. I did not sign my Comment 3 above. Sorry. ButlerianWintermute (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You learned very quickly how find AfD, indent, format !votes, ping editors, quote WP guidelines, etc. What Blind luck, I guess. you have for a novice/noob. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I develop SaaS apps for a living. I've been writing code for several decades. Code and markup make sense to me after some trial and error. The Show Preview button has been invaluable for making and learning from my mistakes. Plus, I can see everyone else's markup and make deductions from there. I was only participating in order to learn and contribute. Your open and overt hostility towards me illustrates a territorial perimeter at play that I don't understand. I'll do us both a favor and hand you a win, leave and not return. Best of luck to you. ButlerianWintermute (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To quote the above, I agree that there is enough WP:RS and WP:IS to meet the WP:GNG. Any disputes as to the veracity of the content either in the article or in any of the sources should be disputed or edited appropriately. To me, this article doesn't rise to level of deletion. Based on the comments above, I also referred to the article of this person's sister, Brigid Harrington, and while it does seem like both articles were contributed by the same initial contributor, the information seems worthy of inclusion and not misleading. ButlerianWintermute (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — ButlerianWintermute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I did some clean-up. Can someone else please do more clean-up? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: How is it possible that the previous two SPA's have suggested keep and yourself without any rationale? Where is the analysis? There is almost no coverage for the subject. The first nine references are announcements, passing mention, 404 pages and theatre notices where she is not even mentioned. scope_creepTalk 15:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep I know the comment was directed at SSilvers, but I'd like to share my own more detailed rationale. 1 2 3 4 seem to provide substantial coverage, including interviews. To consider WP:GNG (as opposed to WP:NACTOR) I don't care what the interviews are about. 5 6 7 focus on her work and mention her. Akin to WP:PROF where, when your work is cited (even if the work is in collaboration with others), you are notable, for actors too, if the work is cited/reviewed and the person is mentioned that says something about your notability, though obviously by itself not enough per NACTOR — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 20:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to creep, I'll add that this person has had significant roles in multiple off-Broadway shows (stage productions), as well as in national tours. I think she easily passes WP:NACTOR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what does SPA mean? — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 20:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:SPA is a single-purpose account, or an IP/unregistered user/WP:COI user who edits in one subject area (or on one article) for the purposes of advocacy or promotion. They often pop up in deletion discussions. KidAd talk 21:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I nominated the page for deletion. KidAd talk 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @Ad Meliora: Most of the references you mentioned above as insufficiently in-depth to qualify as a decent references. Some of them are dependent sources. We will go the references. There is currently no coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV, nor WP:NACTOR nor even WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 20:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an interview is not considered in-depth coverage, then I throw up my hands :-) — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Meliora: Interviews are considered primary sources because they are not independent of the subject, and are often PR vehicles. The source of the interview should also be taken into consideration, an interview at a local radio station such as WRAT, with a broadcast area of only two New Jersey counties (as in this article) is very different than a New York Times or other high-profile media outlet. In the case of this article the interview is not WP:SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the second part of the argument, to which I'd say that to get the Einstein visa, you don't have to be Einstein, being Melania Trump is enough...i.e. noteworthiness is higher is it's international/national media, but local media is also RS/IS and shouldn't be written off. Some of the most important investigative stories, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein, of the last several decades have come from local media. With respect to the first part, I don't quite get it/agree. My own view is that the principle of WP:OR applies to factual information, not notability. Common sense dictates that the fact that a subject has an interview published in a major WP:RS/WP:IS makes them notable (i.e. counts towards WP:SIGCOV requirement), same as a profile would. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Meliora: I added a television interview the actor did on NBC News in NYC. I think this definitely qualifies as a decent reference and is one of the largest markets (if not the largest) in the country. Also, I found another in-depth interview with the actor from another very decent reference- The Asbury Park Press- which is the 2nd largest newspaper in New Jersey.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails WP:ENTERTAINER on all three criteria, and fails WP:GNG. Of the 24 references in the article, 8 only mention her name (two of which are user submitted content); 8 do not mention her at all; 1 is a one sentence-long mention; 1 is about her sister, not her; 2 are primary sources; 1 is a transcript of the interview primary source. There are three instances of actual coverage, but they are all local news, [1], [2], [3] That is not enough to pass WP:GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO for this young actor. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you all for your input. I will do more research and update this page to fulfill all requirements and any concerns you have. From what I already know, the actor has a long list of notable credits and is noteworthy. I will make edits that reflect that. --Mywiki2664 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Mywiki2664 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • All Issues Addressed Thank you everyone for your hard work and input. I saw the edits made and I also spent the last 8 hours researching the subject again, and making more edits. I think the page is so much better now thanks to everyone's work and feedback. I believe that every issue was addressed. Multiple sources have been used-from large publications and broadcast networks from the largest market in the United States to smaller regional publications and media outlets. This actor has a vast, notable body of work which is verified and sourced from reputable sources. An actor being mentioned or listed in a notable production is clear verification of their notabality, and in addition, multiple longer-form interviews were added both in print and on camera. I believe there is more than enough here that addresses any concerns. Thanks again everyone.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is not over. That isn't how this works. KidAd talk 05:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also just found and cited a review and cast list published by The New York Times.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mywiki2664, being mentioned or simply having one's name published in a cast list is not Significant Coverage, as per WP guidelines. A source that merely mentions someone's name, or has a sentence or two about the person is not significant coverage. These are what is called on WP Trivial Coverage: "The general notability guideline WP:GNG stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed. Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline." So if an article in X-publication is about the play itself and does not significantly cover the actor's role, it is considered trivial coverage. It's an unfortunate word, trivial, but that is the word used in WP's notability guidelines that were developed by consensus over a period of years. The article now has 31 citations, but still only 3 of them are about the subject, and those three are local, not national, international or even regional sources. See: WP:TRIVIAL and WP:SIGCOV Adding all these trivial sources is making the article more promotional in tone, see WP:PROMO and increases the puffery WP:PUFF. It might be best to trim down the article to focus on the best sources and avoid WP:REFBOMB. Netherzone (talk)
Netherzone, thanks for the feedback and definitely I will go in as you suggest and make some additional edits.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, just wanted to add though, I do disagree with your premise on this and agree with others in this discussion that the page meets the standards (and that was even before I made edits). But I am more than happy to pare it down and remove some sourcing that you believe may be trivial. FYI the Asbury Park Press is the 2nd largest paper in NJ and they did two extensive articles on the subject. And the New York Times article actually critiques her performance, and the news coverage from NBC is also quite significant...along with many others. But like I said I believe you have a valid point in narrowing it down although all 31 sources are valid which--in its totally--shows the subject is worthy of submission here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywiki2664 (talk • contribs)
Please explain how it is that you have been photographing both Harrington sisters over a period of nearly ten years, yet maintain that you do not have a conflict of interest. Netherzone (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This actress has her whole career ahead of her, but for now there is simply not enough significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to meet the GNG. I also agree with others above that she does not meet WP:NENT either: the one criterion she has a chance of passing is #1, but her "multiple significant roles" are in run-of-the-mill productions with only routine coverage. The interviews provided are all "local girl stars in local production" pieces by local media outlets; there is no significant coverage at all with any regional or national scope. CThomas3 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: U.S. national tours are not local productions, and Off-Broadway productions attract top-tier talent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say the national tours were local, I said her interview coverage was local, focusing on her local performances: two in a New Jersey newspaper and one from New York television station, all discussing her local off-Broadway performances in To Kill a Mockingbird and White Christmas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but other than one brief mention, I didn't see any national tours covered in any of those pieces.
    I do agree that top-tier talent does indeed occasionally perform off-Broadway. However, performing off-Broadway does not in itself make someone top-tier talent, nor does it make all off-Broadway productions significant. As of today, the Internet Off-Broadway Database contains 6,748 productions and 52,846 persons and companies. I imagine that there are some of these that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, but the vast majority of them are not. I unfortunately do not see anything about this particular actress, or the productions in which she has appeared, that make them more worthy of notice than any of the others. This the definition of run-of-the-mill: a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest. CThomas3 (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2020 (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/Shannon_Harrington&oldid=988756603"