Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 August 11
2011 August 13 >

12 August 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kate Oxley ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Consensus was that it met WP:ENTERTAINER and therefore the article should be kept. Most of those saying delete stated either that they didn't think voice actors could be notable, or that this person didn't get coverage anywhere so didn't meet the general notability guidelines. WP:Notability clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline..." and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." That box includes the one for people which says it is notable if it meets any of the requirements for that group. WP:Entertainer covers voice actors and the first one says significant roles. All four of those saying Keep said this person's roles were significant, she even the main character in one notable series. Tried talking with the closing administrator on their talk page. [1] Dream Focus 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment-- I have no opinion over whether she is notable. But I do have an opinion about the proper relationship between the general and specific standards. I think treating it literally as an "or" is often, but necessarily correct--if used in some subjects it will be way too inclusive. The guideline was established at a time when considerably less material was online and readily accessible even in good libraries, and certainly not to the typical Wikipedia editor. It does not take into account the rather obvious fact that the density of available information is different in different fields. We know enough not to compare impact factors across different fields, and we should know enough not to apply the much more simplistic measure of article counts also. Among the fields where I think 2RSs will be often insufficient to show notability unless one of them at least is a source of at least national importance is popular entertainment, (Among the others that often come up for discussion here are some very popular sports, and many types of books). In the other direction, some fields will have subjects notable only with a very broad definition of RSs, and sometimes just one of them at that. Notability is a guideline, and the GNG a portion of a guideline—and the general idea of guidelines is that there are a considerable number exceptions and the only guide for whether we should make an exception in a particular case is the consensus of the community, (or more exactly that usually minute fragment of it that is involved in any particular discussion, normally about 0.01% to 0.1% of the 20,000 very active Wikipedians—or a much smaller percentage if one defines the relevant community more broadly). I often argue here for notability to be treated as subject to common sense, usually in an inclusive direction, but it works the other way also. How common sense works in this case I do not know; this is a comment, not a !vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)
    • If you don't mind a little maths: "treating it as an OR" is indeed widely supported, but it's not commutative: we very rarely find that subjects which pass the GNG but fail a given SNG are non-notable, but the other way around happens all the time, and has always been the better-supported understanding of the relationship between the two when there's been a formal discussion on it. As for the "there are exceptions to guidelines" argument, this is absolutely correct: but the correct time to make exceptions is when not doing so would be farcical, rather than in this case (where we're talking about a BLP on an actress whose claim to fame is the English dubs of characters in various anime series, which almost certainly all have relatively tiny English fanbases to their originals). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I found Bigtimepeace's closing statement confusing, and it seemed to me that he either misstated or misunderstood the reasons for deletion given by people in the AFD. Specifically, Bigtimepeace said that no evidence was given that Kate Oxley's roles were significant, but I don't think even the people in favor of deletion were suggesting that none of the roles were major roles within the things she worked on (though many of them were minor parts, she also played a few major characters). Instead, I thought that people arguing for deletion were saying that the things she worked on were non-notable (due to the argument that the English dub should be considered separately from the work as a whole when judging notability), so even significant roles in those works wouldn't confer notability. It wasn't clear to me from the closing statement if Bigtimepeace thought the arguments were convincing that there needed to be significant coverage specifically focusing on the dubs, or if he is incorrectly asserting that sources don't establish that some of the characters she dubbed were major characters. If it is the former, then he is free to read the arguements that way (as I said in the AFD, I don't think those arguements are based on policy, but if Bigtimepeace thought the majority disagreed with that then it was reasonable to close it that way). However, if he is instead asserting that sources needed to be given to indicate that some of her roles were for major characters, then I think that is both not consistent with the arguements given in the AFD and ignores that there was a source in the article that established one of her roles as that of a main character. Calathan ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I see your confusion here Calathan, and my wording in that one particular sentence was not ideal as I was jumping from one point to another. Yes, it would not be correct to say "you need a source to demonstrate the significance of this one role" and it was not my intention to say that though I see how it could have come off that way. In the AfD there were two main arguments: meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and there are no real independent third party sources so this fails the GNG. The first point was debated by those at the AfD, with keepers basically saying "she passes this because this or that role was significant," and those in favor of deletion questioning the significance of the roles. Lining up some sources that said "Oxley's work here was important" obviously could have been used to demonstrate significance (pretty easily), but barring that those in favor of keeping should have developed a better argument for why this person's roles were significant, rather than simply saying they were. That left open the obvious rejoinder "no they are not" so the arguments there were kind of a wash.
In contrast, those in favor of deletion made a very clear point which was not rebuted. Namely, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore the person clearly fails the GNG. This argument was not at all addressed by those in favor of keeping, so we were left with a weak, contested argument based on WP: ENTERTAINER and a reasonably strong, uncontested argument based on the GNG. This was the basis for reading consensus the way I did.
Speaking to the nom here by Dream Focus, to my mind it severely misinterprets policy. Dream Focus seems to believe--and I think too many editors do--that the various notability guidelines are hurdles on the path to keeping an article, and so long as you leap over one of them then the article is kept. That can often not be the case, and the basic argument of Dream Focus--some people think this passes WP:ENTERTAINER so everything else, including the GNG, is irrelevant--is not correct, or at least not necessarily correct.
First of all there was not even consensus in the discussion that the subject passed WP:ENTERTAINER, but let me speak to the more general point. The key word in passages cited by Dream Focus is presumed: presumed is not the same as is and I think this could be part of the problem. Guidelines are guidelines, not firm rules whereby one part in a movie + one external link mentioning a person = biographical article. Rather we use them to guide a discussion. This discussion had a strong counterpoint to the keep arguments, one which emphasized an aspect of WP:N that Dream Focus completely elides, namely "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." "I think this passes WP:ENTERTAINER" is not a get-out-of-the-WP:V-aspect-of-notability free card. When other editors are saying "I see no real sources for this subject at all" and that argument is not addressed it is unlikely we are going to keep the article--the lack of concern over the lack of sources by those arguing in favor of keeping severely damaged their case.
As I mentioned on the talk page I did not read this as a particularly "close" AfD, e.g. something which could have been closed as no consensus or keep. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You can verify the information in the primary sources, there no reason to doubt this information at all. They are listed in the credits, as well as the official websites, and even at Amazon.com and elsewhere that sells it, the main voice actors listed in the credits. The information can be verified as true, beyond any sincere doubts, so its not a problem. Dream Focus 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The passage I was citing from the guideline does not say "if it has an entry on Amazon.com then that's good enough," rather it says "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This is the part of the guideline you are ignoring in your statement that opened the DRV. Whether you like it or not, we do not have, and never will have, an article on all people who were in a show that can be purchased on Amazon, or with an entry on IMDB that says they had a couple of parts in movies. I gather that you would like to have an article on every person or thing that has been mentioned on the internet--perhaps that's an exaggeration, though I don't think much of one--but thankfully that is not how this project works because we are an encyclopedia with actual standards for inclusion, particularly for living people. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The standards for inclusion should be determined by the guidelines formed by proper consensus. Instead of determining what makes someone notable in their field, we just let anyone have an article based on whether some random media source decided to cover them or not. That's a horrible way to do things. Some poor selling books get covered while others that are bestsellers do not. Sometimes they review the voice actors, sometimes they don't. Is the writer of a notable film not notable because they don't bother mentioning him, but focus on the director and the main actors? Dream Focus 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The standards are what they are and we aren't free to disregard them just because you believe they should be something else. If you want to argue for change, article by article at DRV is probably not going to be too fruitful. Your example is of course a yes, if no one bothers mentioning the writer, then no one has taken note. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reply, Bigtimepeace. I think the confusion I had was just a matter of semantics. Calathan ( talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm puzzled by your claim, Dream Focus, that people in the AfD argued that voice actors were not notable. No one argued this. What people argued was that dubbing actors, ie. not the actor in the original work, did not gain notability from their roles unless the dub itself was independently notable. Your argument against this was that a voice actor has to put in the same emotion as a regular actor, which is completely unconnected to any policy. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A voice actor does the dub. I don't see the difference here. As has come up many times in the past, the language it was first released in isn't relevant. The voice actors have the same high standards when chosen. Places that review anime usually have a rating for the voice actors for the version they are reviewing. The voice actors have to properly show the emotion as a real actor would. Dream Focus 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Which as Roscelese said, is unrelated to policy. We don't find voice actors (original or redubs) notable for based on the quality that wikipedia editors perceive in their work, we base it on the normal what people, who are recognised as knowing about this stuff, consider important enough to write about. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
These same people write about every attractive and otherwise famous person's personal lives, who they are dating, who they were seen walking around with, etc. They write about what their customers will pay to read about. So using them as a basis to determine who should have an article, is rather flawed. That's why we have secondary guidelines of notability, to allow us another method to determine who is notable. Dream Focus 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
As you note "otherwise famous", they've already achieved the interest of "the world", they're already notable, if they weren't then the personal lives would be of little interest. As you say they write about what people will pay to read about (and that's not just the tittle tattle, people will pay to read about scientific breakthroughs, performances they maybe interested in, artistic endeavours ...). And surely that is a pretty good indicator of notability, people actually being interested in it, taking note? Don't get me wrong here there are those who are "famous for being famous" and I don't think we should cover the crap that generates, but for everything else if no one is interested then they haven't achieved notability. Most of the secondary guidelines (or the original ones I recall from past years) always stated a basic criteria of having being covered elsewhere, the other criteria were indicative of those who were likely to have achieved suitable coverage and be notable and always worded that the subject "may be" rather than "absolutely is". This all dovetails with no original research and verifiability, if there isn't good coverage elsewhere then we are left with WP:V only achievable through primary sources, and then our article is likely either a pretty worthless stub, or a set of facts from those sources drawn together and likely implying or reaching conclusions that random wikipedia editors think "worthy". -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
(ec with 82.19.4.7, replying to Dream Focus) They write about what their customers will pay to read about. So using them as a basis to determine who should have an article, is rather flawed. Comments like this, and some other points you raise, are well beyond the scope of this discussion. DRVs are not a place for you to make your own private arguments against well established guidelines and policies, rather the only reason we are here is to determine "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This close was within the bounds of discretion, explains the reasoning, doesn't just count noses. All fine here. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: "In contrast, those in favor of deletion made a very clear point which was not rebuted. Namely, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore the person clearly fails the GNG." I felt no need to refute it. If every article needs to meet GNG, there would be no separate notability guidelines for different subjects. "What people argued was that dubbing actors, ie. not the actor in the original work, did not gain notability from their roles unless the dub itself was independently notable." The dubs are independently notable. Take a look at the sources in the articles and then tell me how many reviews are based on the English dub. As for the admin's reason for deleting the article, that is an extreme thing to say when there are notability guidelines for individual subjects. In the case of the dubbed anime not being independently notable, do some simple research first. Joe Chill ( talk) 16:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree with the statement that not every article needs to meet the GNG--it needs to meet the GMG or the specialized notability guideline, unless the specialized notability guideline in question says that it is meant to further limit the GNG. (I think one that does is WP:LOCAL) The purpose of the specialized guidelines are to avoid the need to be concerned about the specific requirements of the GNG, provided of course that we have WP:V. The usual reason we want to avoid discussing the specific requirements of the GNG is that doing so would be inordinately difficult and generally unnecessary for that subject. But there is an alternative way that leads to the same result: if you think the GNG must always be met, the specialized guidelines say it is presumed to be met in these special cases. The meaning of "presumed" is that it stands unless one can actually show that the presumption is false, by extensive searching of all reasonably possible online and offline sources thoroughly enough that one can say with confidence, that if there were any, I would surely have found it. This is generally quite difficult, and requires knowledge of the appropriate specialized sources for that area, and the ability to get to all of them. There would only be certain limited fields where I would even attempt to do this {not including the field for this subject). Except when we suspect a hoax, normally nobody here attempts it. We are trying only to have a reasonably accurate encyclopedia , not an authoritative one, and that kind of research would only be appropriate if we were trying for true authoritativeness. Recall the rule , Verifiability, not Truth. inclusion in Wikipedia does not aim to prove true notability DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - A perennial "I disagree" DRV filing, nothing special to see here. Closing admin evaluated the arguments, had the intelligence not to bean-count, and determined the consensus was to delete based on the arguments presented. Tarc ( talk) 12:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus The problem is that the arguments that only the GNG (not the SNG) applies and that only original voice actors, vs. foreign language voice actors, gain notability from the role, are, respectively, unsupported and downright wrong. With the specific case of foreign language voice actors, there is already a problem in that the most press an animated feature gets will be in its native language--doesn't mean that it's any less worthy of inclusion in the English Wikipedia, just that there's a translation barrier for much of the good material. Second, the idea that an original voice acting role is more significant has no basis in reality. If you look at Hayao Miyazaki's films, those selected to voice his characters in English have been at least as "big name" actors as the originals were in Japan. Off the top of my head Kirsten Dunst, Patrick Stewart, Brad Pitt, Michael Keaton, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett, and a passel full of other notable actors have been chosen to do voices for his works, because the voice is important for the secondary, foreign language market. While the closer neither specifically accepted nor refuted the argument in his closing statement, it deserves to be refuted, and combined with the SNG/GNG balance issue creates a presumption that the close was not correct. Jclemens ( talk) 02:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A couple of points in reply here which might further clarify my thinking in the close (or not). In my rationale I was not saying that either of the following were true: 1) That the GNG necessarily applied and the SNG necessarily didn't; 2) That only original voice actors were/are notable and that we had agreement on that. As I've said, the whole debate was about deferring more to the GNG or to WP:ENTERTAINER in this particular case. It's not that one was inherently right, or that a different discussion could not have led to a different outcome, it's that we had this particular discussion and my reading of consensus was that the arguments for applying the GNG were stronger and not really refuted. On the other hand, the arguments about WP:ENTERTAINER were: 1) weaker (from those arguing in favor of keeping); 2) actually contested in a reasonable fashion (I know that's the part you disagree with, see the following).
Part of this was the debate about whether the roles in question were "significant." I don't think there was consensus on that issue--i.e. it's not the case that I concluded they were clearly not significant. Most of your comment here would have been good in the AfD, since you are making a more specific case for why Oxley meets the first point of WP:ENTERTAINER. But your comment was not present in the AfD, and while you may think that the opposing view "deserves to be refuted," to do that would, I think, have been to put my thumb on the scales and offer my own argument (which is basically what you are doing here). It is entirely possible that two or three more comments could have been added that would have tipped this to no consensus or even keep, but I was just going off what was said in the discussion, where the question of whether this person met one of the SNGs seemed very much up for debate while the fact that we have basically no sources on this person was never disputed.
I have no problem with someone believing this should have been closed no consensus, even though I disagree, but to say that closing delete was definitively wrong under these circumstances seems like a bit of a stretch to me. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
N vs N+2 (in this case, 4 vs 6) is not a consensus, especially when there are clear differences in opinion. I would not suggest that if the numbers be reversed that it would have been a consensus to keep, either. Administrators in general (not to single you out Bigtimepeace, you're just here, now) are too quick to declare a "winner" and "loser" in disputed cases that really hinge on larger policy questions where varying LOCALCONSENSUSes can yield different results. Jclemens ( talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
We perhaps have a somewhat different approach to AfDs then, though maybe not all that much. That's quite all right and there's no point in getting in a big debate about it here but just thought I'd acknowledge it. FYI I close "no consensus" rather frequently, particularly since in the years I've closed AfDs I've generally dealt with the ones lagging in the back of the queue (as this was). I just didn't see this as one of those for reasons described.
As to the numbers game, it's worth pointing out that I gave very little thought to bean counting here, so the fact that there were more deletes didn't really factor into the close. Had I weighed the numbers more heavily, it would have been closer to N+3 (or N+2.5 perhaps) since I would have somewhat discounted the comment of Northamerica1000. All of the other editors participating at least somewhat elaborated on their comments. But as I said the head count really was not much of a factor. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status.— S Marshall T/ C 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- Those arguing to delete pointed out the lack of sources, while those arguing to keep pinned everything on the article arguably meeting a disputed secondary guideline. The close went with the stronger arguments. Reyk YO! 20:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per User:Dream Focus, who seems to have the greatest amount of expertise here, because if the close went with the stronger arguments it would have been to keep the article. -- 172.162.154.102 ( talk) 04:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) This IP is a sock of a banned user- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_Nobody. Reyk YO! 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    Note; take the above comment with a huge grain of salt, this IP is carrying a beef over from several current AfDs and now seems intent on stalking my recent deletion/review participation. Tarc ( talk) 04:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    Uhh, yeah, that's pretty clearly a logged out editor--whether banned or not--stalking Tarc's recent contributions for whatever reason. Sock case is already up here. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Lack of sources > random guideline. Consensus < Policy. Obviously. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I think the statement "consensus < policy" is obviously wrong. Policies of Wikipedia are based on consensus, and if there is ever a policy that is against consensus then that means the policy should be changed (barring a legal reason why the policy can't be changed). I certainly don't think Bigtimepeace thought he was overruling a consensus when he closed this AFD. I wouldn't argue against you endorsing this if you feel that the close agreed with the consensus, but it seems to me that the statement you made here is just completely out of line with how Wikipedia is meant to work. Calathan ( talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You're missing the point that the first line of the nomination for this DRV reads "Consensus was that it met WP:ENTERTAINER and therefore the article should be kept.". This was based on the fact that a number of people produced bare Keep votes that said "Keep - Meets WP:ENT". As Aaron Brenneman said in the AfD, "Just waving hands and saying "meets entertainer" does not satisfy the accepted inclusion criteria. Find some real sources actually about this person.". That was my point here. More generally, a local consensus (say, at an AfD) does not override policy. If I am closing an AfD and there are six people saying "Delete, not notable" and two saying Keep and explaining exactly why the article should be kept per policy then I will probably close it as Keep. Obviously, a general consensus that a policy should be changed is something completely different. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I understand what you are getting at now, but I think that what you are calling "consensus" is not what Wikipedia refers to as consensus. In your example, if six people say "delete" and give no reason to back up that position, while two people say "keep" and make strong arguements to back up that position, in terms of what consensus means on Wikipedia I would call that a consensus to keep. I also think that a local consensus (not merely a local majority of votes) can and should override policy as it applies to the issue the local consensus was considering. In fact, I think that is really part of the core principles of Wikipedia and one of the main reasons for WP:IAR. Calathan ( talk) 21:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, I agree that consensus is a core principle, but where that consensus is at odds with policy, there still needs to be a discussion on whether the policy should be changed - because, don't forget, policies are based on previous consensus. A local consensus on how a policy applies to one particular article, for example, may not apply to 99% of other articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cage of Eden – Not restored because the article still lacks the coverage required for notability. I recommend creating a userspace draft and submitting that to DRV once the work has been published and has been subject to independent published reviews. –  Sandstein  08:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cage of Eden ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hello there. I once created a Wikipedia page for the manga Cage of Eden after it was licensed by Kodansha Comics USA but the page was deleted due to various reasons but all those in discussion agreed to revert it once the manga was out in North American bookstores. The manga will be out on August 23, 2011 [2] and since it will be out in a week, will the Cage of Eden page be reverted back? Thanks for answering.-- FonFon Alseif ( talk) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

is this then perhaps one of the cases where the article should wait until it actually is released? DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If someone Googles for Cage of Eden, the second result that appears is a link to my manga wikia [4] where I did a full history transwiki from the Wikipedia article when it was up for deletion previously. So they'll get the same information with a bit of searching. Dream Focus 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_12&oldid=1078423841"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 August 11
2011 August 13 >

12 August 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kate Oxley ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Consensus was that it met WP:ENTERTAINER and therefore the article should be kept. Most of those saying delete stated either that they didn't think voice actors could be notable, or that this person didn't get coverage anywhere so didn't meet the general notability guidelines. WP:Notability clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline..." and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." That box includes the one for people which says it is notable if it meets any of the requirements for that group. WP:Entertainer covers voice actors and the first one says significant roles. All four of those saying Keep said this person's roles were significant, she even the main character in one notable series. Tried talking with the closing administrator on their talk page. [1] Dream Focus 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment-- I have no opinion over whether she is notable. But I do have an opinion about the proper relationship between the general and specific standards. I think treating it literally as an "or" is often, but necessarily correct--if used in some subjects it will be way too inclusive. The guideline was established at a time when considerably less material was online and readily accessible even in good libraries, and certainly not to the typical Wikipedia editor. It does not take into account the rather obvious fact that the density of available information is different in different fields. We know enough not to compare impact factors across different fields, and we should know enough not to apply the much more simplistic measure of article counts also. Among the fields where I think 2RSs will be often insufficient to show notability unless one of them at least is a source of at least national importance is popular entertainment, (Among the others that often come up for discussion here are some very popular sports, and many types of books). In the other direction, some fields will have subjects notable only with a very broad definition of RSs, and sometimes just one of them at that. Notability is a guideline, and the GNG a portion of a guideline—and the general idea of guidelines is that there are a considerable number exceptions and the only guide for whether we should make an exception in a particular case is the consensus of the community, (or more exactly that usually minute fragment of it that is involved in any particular discussion, normally about 0.01% to 0.1% of the 20,000 very active Wikipedians—or a much smaller percentage if one defines the relevant community more broadly). I often argue here for notability to be treated as subject to common sense, usually in an inclusive direction, but it works the other way also. How common sense works in this case I do not know; this is a comment, not a !vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)
    • If you don't mind a little maths: "treating it as an OR" is indeed widely supported, but it's not commutative: we very rarely find that subjects which pass the GNG but fail a given SNG are non-notable, but the other way around happens all the time, and has always been the better-supported understanding of the relationship between the two when there's been a formal discussion on it. As for the "there are exceptions to guidelines" argument, this is absolutely correct: but the correct time to make exceptions is when not doing so would be farcical, rather than in this case (where we're talking about a BLP on an actress whose claim to fame is the English dubs of characters in various anime series, which almost certainly all have relatively tiny English fanbases to their originals). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I found Bigtimepeace's closing statement confusing, and it seemed to me that he either misstated or misunderstood the reasons for deletion given by people in the AFD. Specifically, Bigtimepeace said that no evidence was given that Kate Oxley's roles were significant, but I don't think even the people in favor of deletion were suggesting that none of the roles were major roles within the things she worked on (though many of them were minor parts, she also played a few major characters). Instead, I thought that people arguing for deletion were saying that the things she worked on were non-notable (due to the argument that the English dub should be considered separately from the work as a whole when judging notability), so even significant roles in those works wouldn't confer notability. It wasn't clear to me from the closing statement if Bigtimepeace thought the arguments were convincing that there needed to be significant coverage specifically focusing on the dubs, or if he is incorrectly asserting that sources don't establish that some of the characters she dubbed were major characters. If it is the former, then he is free to read the arguements that way (as I said in the AFD, I don't think those arguements are based on policy, but if Bigtimepeace thought the majority disagreed with that then it was reasonable to close it that way). However, if he is instead asserting that sources needed to be given to indicate that some of her roles were for major characters, then I think that is both not consistent with the arguements given in the AFD and ignores that there was a source in the article that established one of her roles as that of a main character. Calathan ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I see your confusion here Calathan, and my wording in that one particular sentence was not ideal as I was jumping from one point to another. Yes, it would not be correct to say "you need a source to demonstrate the significance of this one role" and it was not my intention to say that though I see how it could have come off that way. In the AfD there were two main arguments: meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and there are no real independent third party sources so this fails the GNG. The first point was debated by those at the AfD, with keepers basically saying "she passes this because this or that role was significant," and those in favor of deletion questioning the significance of the roles. Lining up some sources that said "Oxley's work here was important" obviously could have been used to demonstrate significance (pretty easily), but barring that those in favor of keeping should have developed a better argument for why this person's roles were significant, rather than simply saying they were. That left open the obvious rejoinder "no they are not" so the arguments there were kind of a wash.
In contrast, those in favor of deletion made a very clear point which was not rebuted. Namely, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore the person clearly fails the GNG. This argument was not at all addressed by those in favor of keeping, so we were left with a weak, contested argument based on WP: ENTERTAINER and a reasonably strong, uncontested argument based on the GNG. This was the basis for reading consensus the way I did.
Speaking to the nom here by Dream Focus, to my mind it severely misinterprets policy. Dream Focus seems to believe--and I think too many editors do--that the various notability guidelines are hurdles on the path to keeping an article, and so long as you leap over one of them then the article is kept. That can often not be the case, and the basic argument of Dream Focus--some people think this passes WP:ENTERTAINER so everything else, including the GNG, is irrelevant--is not correct, or at least not necessarily correct.
First of all there was not even consensus in the discussion that the subject passed WP:ENTERTAINER, but let me speak to the more general point. The key word in passages cited by Dream Focus is presumed: presumed is not the same as is and I think this could be part of the problem. Guidelines are guidelines, not firm rules whereby one part in a movie + one external link mentioning a person = biographical article. Rather we use them to guide a discussion. This discussion had a strong counterpoint to the keep arguments, one which emphasized an aspect of WP:N that Dream Focus completely elides, namely "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." "I think this passes WP:ENTERTAINER" is not a get-out-of-the-WP:V-aspect-of-notability free card. When other editors are saying "I see no real sources for this subject at all" and that argument is not addressed it is unlikely we are going to keep the article--the lack of concern over the lack of sources by those arguing in favor of keeping severely damaged their case.
As I mentioned on the talk page I did not read this as a particularly "close" AfD, e.g. something which could have been closed as no consensus or keep. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You can verify the information in the primary sources, there no reason to doubt this information at all. They are listed in the credits, as well as the official websites, and even at Amazon.com and elsewhere that sells it, the main voice actors listed in the credits. The information can be verified as true, beyond any sincere doubts, so its not a problem. Dream Focus 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The passage I was citing from the guideline does not say "if it has an entry on Amazon.com then that's good enough," rather it says "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This is the part of the guideline you are ignoring in your statement that opened the DRV. Whether you like it or not, we do not have, and never will have, an article on all people who were in a show that can be purchased on Amazon, or with an entry on IMDB that says they had a couple of parts in movies. I gather that you would like to have an article on every person or thing that has been mentioned on the internet--perhaps that's an exaggeration, though I don't think much of one--but thankfully that is not how this project works because we are an encyclopedia with actual standards for inclusion, particularly for living people. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The standards for inclusion should be determined by the guidelines formed by proper consensus. Instead of determining what makes someone notable in their field, we just let anyone have an article based on whether some random media source decided to cover them or not. That's a horrible way to do things. Some poor selling books get covered while others that are bestsellers do not. Sometimes they review the voice actors, sometimes they don't. Is the writer of a notable film not notable because they don't bother mentioning him, but focus on the director and the main actors? Dream Focus 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The standards are what they are and we aren't free to disregard them just because you believe they should be something else. If you want to argue for change, article by article at DRV is probably not going to be too fruitful. Your example is of course a yes, if no one bothers mentioning the writer, then no one has taken note. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reply, Bigtimepeace. I think the confusion I had was just a matter of semantics. Calathan ( talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm puzzled by your claim, Dream Focus, that people in the AfD argued that voice actors were not notable. No one argued this. What people argued was that dubbing actors, ie. not the actor in the original work, did not gain notability from their roles unless the dub itself was independently notable. Your argument against this was that a voice actor has to put in the same emotion as a regular actor, which is completely unconnected to any policy. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A voice actor does the dub. I don't see the difference here. As has come up many times in the past, the language it was first released in isn't relevant. The voice actors have the same high standards when chosen. Places that review anime usually have a rating for the voice actors for the version they are reviewing. The voice actors have to properly show the emotion as a real actor would. Dream Focus 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Which as Roscelese said, is unrelated to policy. We don't find voice actors (original or redubs) notable for based on the quality that wikipedia editors perceive in their work, we base it on the normal what people, who are recognised as knowing about this stuff, consider important enough to write about. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
These same people write about every attractive and otherwise famous person's personal lives, who they are dating, who they were seen walking around with, etc. They write about what their customers will pay to read about. So using them as a basis to determine who should have an article, is rather flawed. That's why we have secondary guidelines of notability, to allow us another method to determine who is notable. Dream Focus 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
As you note "otherwise famous", they've already achieved the interest of "the world", they're already notable, if they weren't then the personal lives would be of little interest. As you say they write about what people will pay to read about (and that's not just the tittle tattle, people will pay to read about scientific breakthroughs, performances they maybe interested in, artistic endeavours ...). And surely that is a pretty good indicator of notability, people actually being interested in it, taking note? Don't get me wrong here there are those who are "famous for being famous" and I don't think we should cover the crap that generates, but for everything else if no one is interested then they haven't achieved notability. Most of the secondary guidelines (or the original ones I recall from past years) always stated a basic criteria of having being covered elsewhere, the other criteria were indicative of those who were likely to have achieved suitable coverage and be notable and always worded that the subject "may be" rather than "absolutely is". This all dovetails with no original research and verifiability, if there isn't good coverage elsewhere then we are left with WP:V only achievable through primary sources, and then our article is likely either a pretty worthless stub, or a set of facts from those sources drawn together and likely implying or reaching conclusions that random wikipedia editors think "worthy". -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
(ec with 82.19.4.7, replying to Dream Focus) They write about what their customers will pay to read about. So using them as a basis to determine who should have an article, is rather flawed. Comments like this, and some other points you raise, are well beyond the scope of this discussion. DRVs are not a place for you to make your own private arguments against well established guidelines and policies, rather the only reason we are here is to determine "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This close was within the bounds of discretion, explains the reasoning, doesn't just count noses. All fine here. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: "In contrast, those in favor of deletion made a very clear point which was not rebuted. Namely, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore the person clearly fails the GNG." I felt no need to refute it. If every article needs to meet GNG, there would be no separate notability guidelines for different subjects. "What people argued was that dubbing actors, ie. not the actor in the original work, did not gain notability from their roles unless the dub itself was independently notable." The dubs are independently notable. Take a look at the sources in the articles and then tell me how many reviews are based on the English dub. As for the admin's reason for deleting the article, that is an extreme thing to say when there are notability guidelines for individual subjects. In the case of the dubbed anime not being independently notable, do some simple research first. Joe Chill ( talk) 16:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree with the statement that not every article needs to meet the GNG--it needs to meet the GMG or the specialized notability guideline, unless the specialized notability guideline in question says that it is meant to further limit the GNG. (I think one that does is WP:LOCAL) The purpose of the specialized guidelines are to avoid the need to be concerned about the specific requirements of the GNG, provided of course that we have WP:V. The usual reason we want to avoid discussing the specific requirements of the GNG is that doing so would be inordinately difficult and generally unnecessary for that subject. But there is an alternative way that leads to the same result: if you think the GNG must always be met, the specialized guidelines say it is presumed to be met in these special cases. The meaning of "presumed" is that it stands unless one can actually show that the presumption is false, by extensive searching of all reasonably possible online and offline sources thoroughly enough that one can say with confidence, that if there were any, I would surely have found it. This is generally quite difficult, and requires knowledge of the appropriate specialized sources for that area, and the ability to get to all of them. There would only be certain limited fields where I would even attempt to do this {not including the field for this subject). Except when we suspect a hoax, normally nobody here attempts it. We are trying only to have a reasonably accurate encyclopedia , not an authoritative one, and that kind of research would only be appropriate if we were trying for true authoritativeness. Recall the rule , Verifiability, not Truth. inclusion in Wikipedia does not aim to prove true notability DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - A perennial "I disagree" DRV filing, nothing special to see here. Closing admin evaluated the arguments, had the intelligence not to bean-count, and determined the consensus was to delete based on the arguments presented. Tarc ( talk) 12:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus The problem is that the arguments that only the GNG (not the SNG) applies and that only original voice actors, vs. foreign language voice actors, gain notability from the role, are, respectively, unsupported and downright wrong. With the specific case of foreign language voice actors, there is already a problem in that the most press an animated feature gets will be in its native language--doesn't mean that it's any less worthy of inclusion in the English Wikipedia, just that there's a translation barrier for much of the good material. Second, the idea that an original voice acting role is more significant has no basis in reality. If you look at Hayao Miyazaki's films, those selected to voice his characters in English have been at least as "big name" actors as the originals were in Japan. Off the top of my head Kirsten Dunst, Patrick Stewart, Brad Pitt, Michael Keaton, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett, and a passel full of other notable actors have been chosen to do voices for his works, because the voice is important for the secondary, foreign language market. While the closer neither specifically accepted nor refuted the argument in his closing statement, it deserves to be refuted, and combined with the SNG/GNG balance issue creates a presumption that the close was not correct. Jclemens ( talk) 02:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A couple of points in reply here which might further clarify my thinking in the close (or not). In my rationale I was not saying that either of the following were true: 1) That the GNG necessarily applied and the SNG necessarily didn't; 2) That only original voice actors were/are notable and that we had agreement on that. As I've said, the whole debate was about deferring more to the GNG or to WP:ENTERTAINER in this particular case. It's not that one was inherently right, or that a different discussion could not have led to a different outcome, it's that we had this particular discussion and my reading of consensus was that the arguments for applying the GNG were stronger and not really refuted. On the other hand, the arguments about WP:ENTERTAINER were: 1) weaker (from those arguing in favor of keeping); 2) actually contested in a reasonable fashion (I know that's the part you disagree with, see the following).
Part of this was the debate about whether the roles in question were "significant." I don't think there was consensus on that issue--i.e. it's not the case that I concluded they were clearly not significant. Most of your comment here would have been good in the AfD, since you are making a more specific case for why Oxley meets the first point of WP:ENTERTAINER. But your comment was not present in the AfD, and while you may think that the opposing view "deserves to be refuted," to do that would, I think, have been to put my thumb on the scales and offer my own argument (which is basically what you are doing here). It is entirely possible that two or three more comments could have been added that would have tipped this to no consensus or even keep, but I was just going off what was said in the discussion, where the question of whether this person met one of the SNGs seemed very much up for debate while the fact that we have basically no sources on this person was never disputed.
I have no problem with someone believing this should have been closed no consensus, even though I disagree, but to say that closing delete was definitively wrong under these circumstances seems like a bit of a stretch to me. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
N vs N+2 (in this case, 4 vs 6) is not a consensus, especially when there are clear differences in opinion. I would not suggest that if the numbers be reversed that it would have been a consensus to keep, either. Administrators in general (not to single you out Bigtimepeace, you're just here, now) are too quick to declare a "winner" and "loser" in disputed cases that really hinge on larger policy questions where varying LOCALCONSENSUSes can yield different results. Jclemens ( talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
We perhaps have a somewhat different approach to AfDs then, though maybe not all that much. That's quite all right and there's no point in getting in a big debate about it here but just thought I'd acknowledge it. FYI I close "no consensus" rather frequently, particularly since in the years I've closed AfDs I've generally dealt with the ones lagging in the back of the queue (as this was). I just didn't see this as one of those for reasons described.
As to the numbers game, it's worth pointing out that I gave very little thought to bean counting here, so the fact that there were more deletes didn't really factor into the close. Had I weighed the numbers more heavily, it would have been closer to N+3 (or N+2.5 perhaps) since I would have somewhat discounted the comment of Northamerica1000. All of the other editors participating at least somewhat elaborated on their comments. But as I said the head count really was not much of a factor. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status.— S Marshall T/ C 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- Those arguing to delete pointed out the lack of sources, while those arguing to keep pinned everything on the article arguably meeting a disputed secondary guideline. The close went with the stronger arguments. Reyk YO! 20:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per User:Dream Focus, who seems to have the greatest amount of expertise here, because if the close went with the stronger arguments it would have been to keep the article. -- 172.162.154.102 ( talk) 04:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) This IP is a sock of a banned user- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_Nobody. Reyk YO! 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    Note; take the above comment with a huge grain of salt, this IP is carrying a beef over from several current AfDs and now seems intent on stalking my recent deletion/review participation. Tarc ( talk) 04:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    Uhh, yeah, that's pretty clearly a logged out editor--whether banned or not--stalking Tarc's recent contributions for whatever reason. Sock case is already up here. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Lack of sources > random guideline. Consensus < Policy. Obviously. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I think the statement "consensus < policy" is obviously wrong. Policies of Wikipedia are based on consensus, and if there is ever a policy that is against consensus then that means the policy should be changed (barring a legal reason why the policy can't be changed). I certainly don't think Bigtimepeace thought he was overruling a consensus when he closed this AFD. I wouldn't argue against you endorsing this if you feel that the close agreed with the consensus, but it seems to me that the statement you made here is just completely out of line with how Wikipedia is meant to work. Calathan ( talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
You're missing the point that the first line of the nomination for this DRV reads "Consensus was that it met WP:ENTERTAINER and therefore the article should be kept.". This was based on the fact that a number of people produced bare Keep votes that said "Keep - Meets WP:ENT". As Aaron Brenneman said in the AfD, "Just waving hands and saying "meets entertainer" does not satisfy the accepted inclusion criteria. Find some real sources actually about this person.". That was my point here. More generally, a local consensus (say, at an AfD) does not override policy. If I am closing an AfD and there are six people saying "Delete, not notable" and two saying Keep and explaining exactly why the article should be kept per policy then I will probably close it as Keep. Obviously, a general consensus that a policy should be changed is something completely different. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I understand what you are getting at now, but I think that what you are calling "consensus" is not what Wikipedia refers to as consensus. In your example, if six people say "delete" and give no reason to back up that position, while two people say "keep" and make strong arguements to back up that position, in terms of what consensus means on Wikipedia I would call that a consensus to keep. I also think that a local consensus (not merely a local majority of votes) can and should override policy as it applies to the issue the local consensus was considering. In fact, I think that is really part of the core principles of Wikipedia and one of the main reasons for WP:IAR. Calathan ( talk) 21:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, I agree that consensus is a core principle, but where that consensus is at odds with policy, there still needs to be a discussion on whether the policy should be changed - because, don't forget, policies are based on previous consensus. A local consensus on how a policy applies to one particular article, for example, may not apply to 99% of other articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cage of Eden – Not restored because the article still lacks the coverage required for notability. I recommend creating a userspace draft and submitting that to DRV once the work has been published and has been subject to independent published reviews. –  Sandstein  08:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cage of Eden ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hello there. I once created a Wikipedia page for the manga Cage of Eden after it was licensed by Kodansha Comics USA but the page was deleted due to various reasons but all those in discussion agreed to revert it once the manga was out in North American bookstores. The manga will be out on August 23, 2011 [2] and since it will be out in a week, will the Cage of Eden page be reverted back? Thanks for answering.-- FonFon Alseif ( talk) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

is this then perhaps one of the cases where the article should wait until it actually is released? DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If someone Googles for Cage of Eden, the second result that appears is a link to my manga wikia [4] where I did a full history transwiki from the Wikipedia article when it was up for deletion previously. So they'll get the same information with a bit of searching. Dream Focus 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_12&oldid=1078423841"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE