Talk:Stefanie Scott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

An editor removed the notability tag with the summary, "She has done a number notable projects and currently has a regular role in TV series, That passes WP:ENT to me." She has one apparently significant role, in A.N.T. Farm. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". There is no evidence of a significant "cult" following or that she "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Please explain how you feel this passes. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel she now clearly meets the criteria - significant role in a major motion picture ("No Strings Attached") plus she's one of the lead actors in a TV series (A.N.T. Farm). Speedy is definitely out for this article - if you feel it shouldn't be here, put it up for AfD. Tabercil (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That "significant role" in No Strings Attached isn't mentioned in the plot summary of that article, nor is she one of the 19 people listed in the cast. If that's all there is, it's off to AfD. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stefanie Scot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Stefanie Scot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Deleted as a blatant copyright violation. Tabercil (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stefanie Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Downscaling Discography Section[edit]

Stefanie Scott is mainly an actress yet her sparse discography takes up nearly a third of her page when it isn't even what she focuses on. I would recommend changing this to a quick blurb about past experiences maybe, but as it stands it feels way too detailed on a topic that doesn't really focus on her true career. I'd suggest cropping it down to a paragraph that highlights the most notable items but not every single thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmashEnigma (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose to "downscale" it? It's already pretty minimalist, identifying the works and dates. TJRC (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Note; SmashEnigma added "I'd suggest cropping it down to a paragraph that highlights the most notable items but not every single thing" after I asked what his proposal was. It was not there when I asked.)
We don't generally delete sourced accurate info. I see an anon IP editor has made this edit which I think addresses it nicely. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie vs Stephanie[edit]

There was exactly one reference in the article that gave her legal first name as Stephanie, - "Jean Frantz Obituary (2008) - Munster, IN - The Times". Legacy.com. - an obituary for someone purported to be her grandmother that listed her name as Stephanie Scott. Jean Frantz is not sourced in the article as her grandmother, the names of her parents are not sourced in the article, the names of her brothers are in a reference in this article and in the obit, but not mentioned in this article. Even if the obit is for her grandmother, and it likely is, it is not a reliable source. Fact checking for obituaries depends solely on what the family provides and spelling mistakes are fairly common. Since this is the sole place where her name is spelled "Stephanie" and all others sources, including herself in her own social media, spell it "Stefanie" it is much more likely the obit just spelled her name incorrectly as opposed to being an authoritative source for how her name is spelled.

This is how an obituary is submitted to that source. Cost starts at $150 to publish it. As per article at WP:SELFPUB "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've argued before that legacy.com should be added as a do-not-use to WP:RSP, but the discussion got no traction. TJRC (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez Thanks for the message. The main problem is there is no reference for the birth name, there is a tweet from her as a reference which is only about her middle name, so the existing reference does not verify birth name in the first place. The obit I added is from The Times, which is listed as a reliable source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (Correction: OK since the page says "Published by The Times" I thought it was the The Times which was listed as a reliable source, but I notice now it was The Times of Northwest Indiana, still I don't have a reason to consider that an unreliable source though.)
I don't get the point about legacy.com as it's only a host, not the source itself as it cites The Times as the actual source.
With your WP:SELFPUB argument, that existing tweet about her middle name would be an invalid reference too, but I think it's valid because there's WP:BLPSELFPUB which should be more relevant here.
About this: "Since this is the sole place where her name is spelled "Stephanie"" please see the information about her company here, it's an official "State of Florida" website, and it's all public information. You can check "Annual Report" pdfs on that page to see how her legal name is written.
There are also other public records that can be found like voter records etc.: https://voterrecords.com/voter/70785828/stephanie-scott
But I know using these would not be appropriate as per WP:BLPPRIMARY, that's why I only used The Times source when there was nothing to verify her birth name at all in the article anyway.
In any case, if the above is still not acceptable, then birth name info should be deleted and only her stage name "Stefanie Scott" should be used in the article per WP:BLP as currently there is no reference for her "birth name" at all. Tehonk (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about deleting "Stefanie Scott" as "birth name" when that's unsourced. But no, we should not be looking at and interpreting public records to be the point of first-reporting a purported birth name in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, by design, reflects information published in reliable third-party published sources. If no publications have deemed it worthy to report the subject's birth name, Wikipedia is not the place where it should be reported for the first time. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the Times source was the death notice itself was not created by The Times, it is created by the family likely with help from the funeral home who paid for The Times to print it in the obituary section making it a self-published item. This is normal for death notices for people who are generally not notable enough for the paper to create a news article about the death. I agree with removing the birth name as unsourced. Also, if she has another name she prefers to keep private, apparent from lack of any mention in secondary sources, we should respect that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stefanie_Scott&oldid=1208333633"