Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie DiMeco (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. There has been significant debate over whether there are reliable sources, and whether the roles are considered minor, but no clear agreement. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Allie DiMeco
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

On top of her only major acting credit being a minor role on a TV show, there is not enough reliable information about her for her to have an article. When I did a Google search, all I found were MySpace, YouTube, and Facebook profiles, fan sites, and her IMDb page. None of those are reliable sources. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 08:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete keep [see comments below]. She appears to play a major character in a television show that is presumptively notable for Wikipedia purposes (it has an article, but has never been tested in an AFD). Nevertheless, WP:ENT supplies notability only when an actress "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). She may go on to great and glorious things, in which case see WP:RECREATE, but for now, see WP:CRYSTAL. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The initial AFD discussion was a unanimous keep, nominator aside, and the subject has only become more notable since than, including an award nomination that has been treated regularly on wikipedia as notable. Despite the nominator's claim, there are quite a few sources out there establishing a basis for notability for her appearances in multiple productions; the fact that her most well-known appearances are within a single franchise does not mean they do not involve multiple productions (especially with both movie and TV credits). There are, for example, a significant number of articles about actors in the Harry Potter films who do not have significant credits outside that franchise. Not an unusual thing for younger performers. The WP:ENT language quoted is not well phrased, and the idea that multiple seasons of a television program amount to a single production is not one that has demonstrated consensus support. The fact that it may be difficult to write more than a stub article based only on online sources does not mean that an otherwise valid stub should be deleted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. With a nomination for her work, this article may pass WP:ENT, but she still fails the general notability guideline, as she has not received any sort of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If WP:ENT supplies notability, that overrides WP:GNG. The topic-specific notability guidelines augment GNG, and (in my view, at least) must override it for those articles to which they squarely apply. If that isn't so, the separate guidelines are superfluous and irrelevant, and the GNG is the real guideline in all notability questions. Thus, the mere fact that the separate guidelines exist tells us that they are controlling when applicable. For example, Jess Cates probably fails the GNG, but WP:COMPOSER supplies notability (see Articles for deletion/Jess Cates).


 * That is a purely academic point for purposes of the present nomination, though. As you noted, the GNG doesn't supply notability -- but neither does ENT. As I mentioned above, ENT supplies notability only when an actress "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). So far as I can determine, the subject has appeared in one television show. While I appreciate that user:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz feels that the guideline "is not well phrased, and the idea that multiple seasons of a television program amount to a single production is not one that has demonstrated consensus support," that is what the guideline says. An editor can appeal to the purpose of a policy to override its text, see WP:GAME, but in order for that argument to stick, one must identify the purpose of the policy and explain why the text contradicts it, which Hullaballoo hasn't done. See WP:PIMP, WP:What "Ignore all rules" means, and especially WP:EXCEPTIONS.


 * To be sure, Hullaballoo is right that there's a generality problem inherent in ENT's language. Arguably, each individual episode of a show could be characterized as a "production." At the other end of the scale, we could consider the entire show a production, particularly where (as in Scrubs or Babylon 5) there is a dedicated production facility that remains in existence between seasons. Where's the line? We should to select the level of generality that best fits the purpose, text, and scope of the rule. Cf. Bork, The Tempting of America 149 (1997). Hullabaloo proposes, in effect, to draw the line at each season. That makes some sense in the context of movies, and it may even make some sense in the context of particular shows. But as a general proposition in the television context, it doesn't seem a good fit. Two seasons may have different writers and directors - but so too may different episodes. My view, at least in the context of television shows generally, is that the show itself is the "production." That it has run for multiple but contiguous seasons no more transforms it into multiple productions than running for multiple episiodes does.


 * Accordingly, in my view, ENT is the applicable guideline, and it can't supply DiMeco with notability (at least, not yet), therefore the article should be deleted until changed circumstances brings WP:RECREATE into play. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a movie, followed by a related TV show after the movie proved popular, which makes at least two productions however you count them. And WP:ENT is guideline, not policy. Rather than interpreting the text in a vacuum, we should examine the consensus it reflects in interpreting it.  The first AFD was nearly a unanimous keep, with multiple users expressing the opinion that a regular role in an ongoing TV series satified the notability requirements of WP:ENT, an opinion that persists today Articles for deletion/James Michael Tyler. If you want to say that there's consensus that a regular role in a TV series doesn't satisfy WP:ENT in light of such examples, you should able to at least provide some contrary examples of AFDs where the consensus reflects your interpretation of the guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems odd that you would cite Articles for deletion/James Michael Tyler. For one thing, it's still open. For another, the point for which you cite it is, so far as I can see, only being advanced by you and has been roundly and persuasively rejected by user:MickMacNee. To my mind, the most sensible rule is that one show is one production. Friends is one production. So are umpteen seasons of The Naked Brothers Band. I can see the case for making the rule a rebuttable presumption, allowing a showing that season X of a show was functionally or de facto a separate production from season Y. That might be true, for example, of Family Guy, which was cancelled and then revived some years later. But as a rule, it seems to me that a show ought to be treated as a production, rather than treating different seasons or different episiodes as different productions.


 * Your stronger argument that the first movie was separate from the TV show. If that's true, DiMeco has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television productions, and WP:ENT accordingly supplies notability. I had understood that this was a series of so-called "TV movies," in the same sense that Columbo could be thought of as a series of "TV movies" rather than a show. I don't know what the distinction is, in a technical sense, but on closer review, it does appear that the first movie was an actual movie (theater release and everything!). That probably makes it a separate production, just as The Transformers: The Movie and The Transformers (TV series) (or the movie Clerks and the show Clerks: The Animated Series) are separate productions.


 * We don't have to resolve that "probably," however. Your very best argument, and for me the clincher, is that we have already decided this question. I somehow managed to miss it, although it was included in the nom and you mentioned it above, but this is the second nomination. The first conclusively decided that DiMeco was notable, and although I have some doubts (I am still dubious as to how truly separate the TV show and the movie are as productions), absent compelling reason to do otherwise, I defer to the consensus of the earlier nomination. I have accordingly changed my vote above to keep. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of her notability as an actress who has been in multiple notable productions, there is simply not enough reliable information about her to constitute an article. The only sourced information in the article is from IMDb, which can be edited by anybody. If we were to remove all unreliable sources, we would only be left with her YAA nomination.


 * When information about her comes out in reliable sources, perhaps the article can be recreated. Until that happens, I stand firmly by my nomination to delete the article. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there were no reliable secondary sources available, we'd be in a situation like Articles for deletion/Jess Cates. In that nomination, WP:COMPOSER supplied notability, but I agreed with user:TenPoundHammer's reasoning that deletion should follow when there are truly no secondary sources on which to base the article. While there were a handful of primary sources available, they wouldn't cut it by themselves because WP:RS and WP:PSTS very strongly suggest that an article can't rest on primary sources alone. Granted, IMDB doesn't appear to be a reliable source, at least for most purposes . But the article's failure to cite reliable secondary sources is quite different from their not existing. The number of ghits suggests to me that here, in contrast to Cates, there may well be secondary sources that can be found and added. And, crucially, Cates was a first nomination, so we wrote on a blank page. We shouldn't lightly set aside the keep consensus from this article's earlier nomination. I've added the "citations needed" template to the article; if it truly proves impossible to find workable secondary sources after a reasonable period of time, I may support renomination, but at this time, we appear to have notability, and I'm just not sure that I buy that there are no secondary sources out there. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you even bother to look at those ghits? As I said in the nomination - YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, fan sites, IMDb... none of that has information that we could include in the article as they are not reliable sources. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I bother to look individually at anywhere from 131,000 to 777,000 ghits? No. Neither did you (it would take upwards of 36 hours to do look at 131,000 pages, even assuming--unrealistically--that it only takes one second to open and evaluate each hit). I agree that a lot of the sources, at first glance, don't appear reliable, but that wasn't my point. I think that it's likely that there are secondary sources available. Now, frankly, I'm a deletionist. If this was a first nomination, and we accordingly had our druthers, I would agree with you that we should delete now and see what shows up in the future. But the community has already considered and rejected an AFD for this article, including the same argument you're pressing about sourcing, and we owe a degree of deference to the earlier consensus. The bar is higher now. Given the posture of this nomination (a second nomination when the first produced consensus to keep), given notability (via WP:ENT), and given the plausibility of finding secondary sources, it's appropriate to see if editors interested in the article's continued existence can dig them up once they have (as they now have been) put on notice that this is "do or die" for the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Chances are, if something is up that far into the ghits - and fake MySpace profiles come before it - it's likely not notable enough to be included. I highly doubt useful, reliable information on DiMeco would have such a low PageRank. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Co-starring role in a single series doesn't get past WP:ENT, which says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Nor will being nominated for a minor award. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is in a movie and then a TV series based on the movie, have they been in two separate productions? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because the show is essentially an extension of the film. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Clerks: The Animated Series essentially an extension of the filk Clerks? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the same thing. C:TAS is not a TV series that followed a TV movie. The movie was basically a two-hour pilot for the show. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found an interview with her in Newsday: Becker, Siobahn (November 25, 2007). "Talking with... actress Allie DiMeco", Newsday, p. G26. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...And? She may have been covered in a reliable source, but it's going to take more than one interview to provide enough information on her to make a decent article. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the concerns that prompted you to recommend deletion for this article was that she has not been covered in any reliable sources. (In my view that represented your strongest argument for deletion.) I'm pointing out that she has been, at least in one. That suggests that if more effort is put into searching, others could well be found as well. In addition, I found multiple reviews of the TV show, in a wide range of newspapers, that mention her and her character by name, indicating that her role is not "minor" as you suggested in your nomination. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.