Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Kamino


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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Brenda Kamino

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of an actress, with no properly sourced notability claim per WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actress is not just the ability to list a bunch of roles that she's played, it's the ability to show media coverage about her work as an actress. But the references here are 4/5 primary source profiles which cannot support notability at all, such as her self-created profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with and her own self-published website about herself, and the one that isn't a primary source is a purely routine directory entry. None of these are sources that demonstrate the notability of an actress, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated with significantly improved sources Rfairwea (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you updated with mostly more sources that aren't helping. An actress's notability is not bolstered just because her name appears in her films' or TV shows' cast lists, for example — that kind of source assists only if her performance is singled out for analysis within the body text of a film or TV review, which neither the Carter nor Rashomon citations do at all. And almost everything else you've added is still primary sourcing, such as a press release from the show's own producers, that still aren't helping. The only new source you've added that is actually starting to get us anywhere is the Now article, and that just gets us off the starting blocks but not all the way to the finish line all by itself as the only substantive and reliable source in play. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a search returned many trivial mentions, and one sketchy listing of Canadian actors. I could not find anything in-dpeth in Gnews, GBooks or general web search. Might be notable if someone can make an argument based on N:ACTOR, but GNG-wise it's a fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, on reconsideration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Delete  Fails WP:ACTOR. (feel free to ping me to reconsider is someone finds WP:SIGCOV. the best I could find was (Kamino charts Naomi's Road to family past: [AM Edition] Mira Friedlander SPECIAL TO THE STAR. Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]09 Apr 1992: H7. ), and it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Bearcat, what WP:NACTOR ACTUALLY SAYS is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Your version is completely made-up, as far as I can see. And E.M.Gregory, did you ever look where WP:ACTOR goes?  Regulars on autopilot I fear. With a distinctive name she seemed to get c. 12 views a day before nomination, which suggests notability. Why is this on artists, academics & authors sort lists though? Seems silly. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't make shit up. Every single actor who exists has always had roles, because having roles is the job description for an actor, and "significant" is not actually defined at all: does a person have to be the star of the film or TV show to have a "significant" role, or is role "significant" as soon as it actually has spoken lines and isn't just background extra work? This tug of war plays out all the time in actor AFDs: actors always want their PR agents to get them into Wikipedia, so they take the most generous possible definition of "significant", while we apply stricter standards — but we haven't objectively quantified either (a) where the specific line between a role that passes NACTOR and a role that doesn't pass NACTOR actually is, or (b) whether any of the roles Brenda Kamino has had actually get over it or not. So cursory verification that roles have happened (via IMDb, or the self-published primary source websites of the TV shows or films or plays she was in, or glancing namechecks of her existence in cast lists) is not how you actually get an actor over that criterion: even when you're shooting for "notable because she's had roles", the actual notability test is still the depth of media coverage the person received for having roles, and not just the list of roles in and of itself. Reliable sources are who has to tell us that (a) the role was significant enough to count toward passing NACTOR, and (b) the person has received enough attention for the roles to clear WP:GNG. Actors who don't have adequate media coverage are not handed a free pass over NACTOR just because the article lists roles: the notability test is the degree to which the having of roles has or has not made the actor a subject of media attention. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And where is any of that in WP:NACTOR? If you don't like the policy, you should argue for change, not just ignore it. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not "ignoring" a damn thing. SNGs don't have to specifically point out that passing the criterion is a matter of reliably sourcing that the criterion has been passed and not just asserting it, because it's a core principle of Wikipedia that every notability criterion always works that way by definition. There is no notability criterion that ever makes a person so crucially important for us to cover that they're exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because the article asserts passage of a notability criterion — people can and do lie about notability criteria that article subjects don't really pass in reality, or advertorialize article subjects into sounding more notable than they really are, or even try to create articles about total hoaxes that never actually existed, all the time, so passage of any notability criterion always has less to do with what the article says and more to do with how well the article references what it says, and there are no exceptions. Individual notability criteria don't have to redundantly restate what's already a core principle of how all of our notability criteria work in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep She meets WP:NACTOR . The earliest stage appearance I can find was a significant role in a play that reportedly had a record-breaking success in Toronto in 1977, and toured Canada over 2 years, and she has had other significant roles in notable plays/films/tv series over the 40 years since then. I have started editing the text for a more encyclopaedic tone, and adding more references. (As other editors have pointed out, WP:NACTOR states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It does not say "and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as  WP:CREATIVE does.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: GNG supersedes all SNGs except NACADEMIC including NACTOR. If she fails GNG but passes NACTOR, it should technically be a delete.  If she passes GNG but not NACTOR, it should be a keep.  If she fails both, it should be a delete.  If she passes both, it should be a keep.    SITH   (talk)   10:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Then why do we have WP:SNGs? If every subject has to pass WP:GNG, there is no need for any other guidelines. If subjects pass WP:SNGs, as verifiable in reliable independent sources, then although there may not be evidence of the significant coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, they should be kept. We do not have access to all reliable, independent sources ever published or broadcast, so the WP:SNGs provide a basis for deciding which subjects in particular fields are considered notable, and which aren't. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment That is incorrect. The very first part of WP:N clearly says that GNG/SNG is an either/or situation: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Claiming that an article has to meet both SNG and GNG or be deleted is contrary to long-established consensus guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with RebeccaGreen and Bakazaka, SITH is mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Revisiting because my comment above was terse. What I saw, and continue to see, is an actor who has been a presence in the Ontario theater scene for decades Performing the Intercultural City, By Ric Knowles, University of Michigan Press, 2017, p 178, an enduring presence and career that is significant by our standards.  And, as User:RebeccaGreen has said, passes WP:NACTOR  with roles discussed in WP:RS (reviews of her roles in various plays). E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes NACTOR which requires ' significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions' and not, as the OP falsely claims, significant press coverage of those roles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (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.