Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo


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

The result was delete. A somewhat lengthy discussion with several points of contention. First off, based on the arguments presented here it's clear that WP:GNG is not met - apparently they are all either drive-by mentions, self-published blogs with no editorial oversight (per the discussion underneath WanderingWanda's argument) or the subject's own websites (per argument underneath Norozco's argument), and no clear rebuttals were offered except for unsupported assertions and DreamFocus's rather vague argument. The WP:ENT-based argument is a bit more murky as there is one major role and one other role where there is disagreement on whether another role satisfies the criteria, but it seems like the most detailed argument is that this role is not major. Plus there are general BLP sourcing concerns here as well. I see there are canvassing concerns but it doesn't seem like canvassing itself or the fear of it have swayed the discussion to any degree. Thus, a delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Casey Mongillo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



No notable roles except for Shinji in the Neon Genesis Evangelion redub and Sho in Mob Psycho 100. Nothing else seems to be stand out beyond that. For comparison's sake, Spike Spencer, who was the original English voice of Shinji, has voiced in every single Evangelion media to date prior to the redub. He is way more notable as the character's English voice.

The subject, on the other hand, did not voice the character in the Rebuild movies, which makes me question if being the redub voice of Shinji for just the original Eva continuity is even that notable at all. WP:NACTOR may not be met, and I'm convinced that the subject does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:WHYN, because the majority of the sources are just mere WP:SELFPUB tweets, with little to no reliable sources. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: It is likely that some users were canvassed via these tweets from the subject: [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ]

Here's a backup in case the subject decides to delete them: [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ] --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep : This actor strikes me as being on the edge of notability, but they are the subject of at least two articles:, . They're also discussed in these articles: , , , and briefly noted in several more. Their role as the lead character in the Evangelion series and movies is undeniably significant, and, as noted, they have a major role in Mob Psycho 100. They also have secondary roles in Time of Eve, Zetman, and Mobile Suit Gundam Seed (as Nicol Amalfi), plus a ton of smaller roles. Spike Spencer's career isn't relevant: this isn't a competition between the two. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that being the redub voice of Shinji means that much compared to Spike, when the latter has been voicing the character for far longer and before the subject's career had even started. Spike first voiced as Shinji back in 1997, when the ADV dub was released. He continued to voice as the character as of 2014, which was the year the English dub for Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo debuted. Having voiced the character for 17 years (almost two decades), you are going to have a difficult time convincing me that some short term redub voice is just as notable as a 17 year long commitment to portraying the character. Spike's portrayal of the character is also broadcast on Toonami - the network aired both the original series *and* the Rebuild movies. [1 ] [2 ] [3 ]
 * Guess whose portrayal of the same character isn't broadcast on American television? The subject's. On top of that, Spike's portrayal is notable enough for Funimation to call him back to reprise his role for the Rebuild movies. The subject's voicework for Shinji isn't that notable, by comparison. It is important to compare the subject and Spike's voicework for the same character, because that is the only way we could determine which portrayal is the more notable one. And I believe it is crystal clear as to which portrayal is significantly more notable. The subject's portrayal is only featured on Netflix. It may be a big streaming platform, but the redub isn't distributed anywhere else. Spike's portrayal of Shinji, on the other hand, was broadcast on American televsion, and distributed via home media as well. This dwarfs the significance and notability of the redub by a lot.
 * On another note, the Daily Dot and Pride articles only briefly mentioned the subject; that's not WP:SIGCOV. Some of the other articles talk a bit more, but that's about it. Is there even anything else we can write about the subject? If not, then the subject fails WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
 * Lastly, I should mention that the subject's role in Gundam SEED isn't even out yet. It's literally just a cast announcement, so there is no notability nor coverage about it. Also, it's yet another redub voice. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing "Weak keep" to just "keep", on reflection. The HuffPost and Vice articles represent in-depth, non-trivial coverage from more than one independent source. Therefore, I think Casey Mongillo passes WP:GNG. And while I'm 100% all in favor of merging smaller articles with larger ones, I don't see any good place to merge this article to, and I think it would be a shame to just lose it. The article may be somewhat short, but it's also interesting. It's not just a dry list of the actor's credits: it talks about both transphobia in the voice acting industry and non-binary representation in media. I'll point to this list of "very short featured articles", as well as the Permastub essay than notes that Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that the HuffPost source is a "contributor" article (RSP entry). HuffPo hosts user-generated content with minimal editorial oversight: effectively self-published blogs. (It's also an interview in question-answer format, not in-depth external coverage.) Cheers, gnu 57 22:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, GNU. I'd imagine that brings the subject meeting WP:SIGCOV into further doubt. Also, a working actor's article *should not* be a permastub; that violates WP:WHYN. Furthermore, WP:WHYN is an actual policy, while Permastub is just an essay - we don't even know if it's a widespread Wikipedia norm. I am doubtful that it is, because it strongly contradicts with WP:WHYN.
 * Also, Wanda, with your latest reply, you're basically admitting that it is unlikely for the article to be expanded in the foreseeable future because you think it's a permastub that "doesn't need expanding", and the only real reason you want to keep the article is because "it would be a shame". That seems to be a "personal taste" type argument, if you ask me. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I knew to look out for Forbes's weird "contributor" distinction, but HuffPost pulls it too, huh? Back to "weak keep" then. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Forbes and Huffpost's contributor section is not reliable, see WP:RSP. It would have to be written by staff editors. If the "contributor" is independently reliable, then reconsider on case-by-case basis. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my analysis of the articles cited:
 * * The Vice article   is a great detailed analysis of Mongillo's portrayal with the LGBT perspective. I would count this article towards significant coverage.
 * * Huffpost "She's changing the game" is detailed on Mongillo's career, but it is also contributor driven, but if Florida Dame is a notable journalist, then it's a maybe, but it's also a Q&A interview for 2/3 of the article.
 * * TV Guide - (have to access this one later) hard to tell, mentions name, "good job" and "trans"
 * * Pride.com - listed among 10 voice actors in LGBT and just has a brief paragraph, not significant coverage.
 * * Daily Dot  - this is passing mention: "Casey Mongillo did an excellent job voicing the main character, Shinji Ikari"
 * So I would count Evangelion as a major role towards WP:ENT. Where is the second one? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you ask me, there needs to be at least three major roles to qualify for WP:ENT, and even then, there needs to be WP:SIGCOV that talks about those roles, as well as reviews. Just getting cast for voice roles (even if they're main roles) isn't enough. From what I'm seeing at the moment, the reliable sources are incredibly scant. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT says multiple, which is defined as more than one. So two is enough, you don't need three.   D r e a m Focus  23:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just your interpretation of the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline says that two is the minimum. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two has always been the minimum. There is no other way to interpret the dictionary definition of the word "multiple".   D r e a m Focus  04:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You do have an argument there when it comes to "multiple" as it is not defined clearly, it does bother me though on the lack of significant coverage. If we were going for WP:IAR then a poorly sourced BLP with passing mentions isn't helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just your interpretation of the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline says that two is the minimum. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two has always been the minimum. There is no other way to interpret the dictionary definition of the word "multiple".   D r e a m Focus  04:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You do have an argument there when it comes to "multiple" as it is not defined clearly, it does bother me though on the lack of significant coverage. If we were going for WP:IAR then a poorly sourced BLP with passing mentions isn't helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: You can't just call out an automatic deletion for Casey, while it is true that this voice actor is still new to the VA community, but like all voice actors, they need more time to develop as a professional voice actor. but your not even giving Casey the chance to do that, even though Casey has her own |Twitter account, |an IMDB, |a BTVA, |an Instagram, |an ANN Page & last but not least |her own website. So please, don't delete this article just yet, all I'm asking s that you give this article some more time to develop, ok. Norozco1 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's your rationale for keeping the article, it's policy non-compliant. It's literally a non-argument. You have cited a total number of zero policies. Any voice actor can just create a Twitter profile or have user generated pages as long as they have voiced at least one role. That doesn't make them notable. Please read WP:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY, and please stop begging for mercy. What you just did is an argument that you should have avoided making. Also, articles should ideally be fully fleshed out in their draft state before they're even published. How many years a voice actor has been in the industry is also immaterial to their notability.
 * Furthermore, one of the subject's earlier works is from 2010, in Red Dead Redemption. That was 9 years ago. This means the subject isn't new to the industry like you claim they are. And even if the subject were an industry newbie, we don't hand out free passes just because of that. They still need to meet our notability guidelines - no subject is exempt from that.
 * Lastly, AFD is not an "automatic" process; this article could only be deleted if there a *consensus* to delete. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP 04:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Still new means WP:TOOSOON. If you're still looking for more sources to show notability you can move this to draft AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 07:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree the coverage this person confirms they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.   D r e a m Focus  04:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple social media accounts does not mean notability. The articles are brief paragraphs that say "Casey does a great job" and "Casey came out as trans". So there is potential Casey could be notable, but need those WP:THREE in-depth articles that focus on Casey. If those magazines are writing about Casey's career then great, bring those out. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Three is an essay and a rather stupid one at that. The notability guidelines say multiple, which the dictionary defines as more than one.  So saying two isn't enough you need three, is just pointless.   D r e a m Focus  23:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet, the essay cites WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, and it is very much in line with site policy, especially in regards to expanding articles with more credible sources. The essay is hardly stupid, if you ask me. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per our guideline WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON. I am fully open though to a redirect to Shinji Ikari or a user draft if an editor is willing to work on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. The fact that the HuffPost article is unreliable, and probably unusable per WP:BLP, is a pretty big blow to my above arguments. Therefore, I'm flip-flopping again: let's merge the Evangelion-related content to Neon Genesis Evangelion (or Shinji Ikari). (I do think it would be good to save/userfy the article, though, as we may want to recreate it in the future.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep How is this even a topic of discussion? Meets literally all criteria for a valid Wikipedia article. The S (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You claim that the article meets the notability critieria, but what are they? For someone that's so sure of what they're saying, surely, you should be able to cite some of the site policies to back up your argument? Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I fail to see what Spike Spencer's notability has to do with Casey Mongillo's. Casey has done more than enough voice work over the past decade, with increasingly notable roles in recent years, and is arguably more notable than many other voice actors on this site. The only reason the person requested deletion seems to just be out of obsession for Spike Spencer and some delusion of defending his honour. That's not a grounds for deletion, that's a grounds for mental evaluation.64.231.241.225 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Arguably" more notable, huh? Why don't you prove it by citing Wikipedia's guidelines? And "mental evaluation", huh? That's rich, coming from an IP that is most likely canvassed by the subject's tweets to defend them (which I will update above). You know, throwing "Strong Keep" doesn't help keep the article. It's about consensus and the strength of the argument. Oh, and thanks for the WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, by the way. That's against the rules. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not intended as a personal attack, it was an observation of your juvenile reasoning for requesting deletion, which was almost entirely just "Spike Spencer did Shinji more so Casey Mongillo shouldn't have an article". That's not how things work. As others have already pointed out, they meet the criteria for an article — I don't have to provide examples when others have already done so. Stop being so upset and stop acting so aggressive towards everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do. People other than Spike Spencer are allowed to have Wikipedia articles. Also epic "ur an ip user lul" response. I don't care about what Casey tweets, if this article deserved deletion then I wouldn't have bothered. Furthermore, your tweets and strange childish beliefs that "being in the Rebuilds means they're better" further solidify that you're only reason for requesting deletion is spite and fanboyism for the original Evangelion cast. Please stop trying to make this website about yourself and grow up. Don't claim others are personally attacking you when you're acting out in a childish tantrum. 64.231.243.99 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a participant of an AFD, you *do* have to cite valid guidelines when you present an argument. Just because other people share similar sentiments with you, that doesn't mean you're exempt from citing nothing. I cited the guidelines, and you did not. There's more pressing concerns than just the subject's voicework as Shinji - as noted above with WP:SIGCOV and WP:WHYN. Saying the subject deserves to have their own article without citing any guidelines is just empty words.


 * And you're free to deny that you made a personal attack against me, but it doesn't change the fact that you did - I don't need a mental evaluation just because I nominated an article for deletion. The fact that you can't even tell that you made a personal attack against me is very concerning per WP:CIR. If you can't disagree without resorting to name calling, then please stop editing on the project. Nobody's throwing a childish tantrum here. Rather, the one that's hurling insults at me seems to fit that description way more. Your editing history seems to strongly imply that you're just here to attack me, which means you're not really here to build an encyclopedia. [1]


 * You're one to talk about aggression when you talked down to me for needing a mental evaluation, and having no contribution history for the last decade or so up until just now, which makes you suspicious, and likely canvassed by the subject's tweets.


 * PS: Stop IP hopping in an attempt to evade detection. And don't try to link other Twitter accounts when it's irrelevant to this debate. Plenty of people dislike the redub. Oh, and feel free to keep talking down to me. I won't be responding to you any more unless you could cite some actual guidelines. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not IP hopping, and the contribution from a decade ago is from another person who happened to have my IP at some point, but alright then. I'll tell my IP to stop changing when you stop acting like an aggressive asshole towards every single person here. I'll end this discussion now since this obviously isn't going anywhere and we're both just running in circles pointlessly. 64.231.243.99 (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The canvassed WP:NOTHERE IP has been blocked for personal attacks. Check the diff here. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You are beginning to bludgeon this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep passes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG only works if the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". At least half of the sources present point to social media which act as primary sources, the rest appear to be passing mentions that do not go into detail on the person other than the characters she voices. AngusWOOF did a nice job breaking down the possible usable sources above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My !vote stands and is self explanatory. I know how this works. A voice actor is known for their work, and this one has a large body of work. Move on. Lightburst (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The huffpo, and vice articles are reliable third party, non trivial coverage. AdamF in MO (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vice article is fine and can be used as a reliable source, but *definitely* not the contributor-written Huffpost article. To quote Reliable sources/Perennial sources: HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). With only one in depth article from Vice, I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This person clearly passes criteria 1 of ent. AdamF in MO (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. How does the subject meet the criteria in question? Shinji is the only role that had coverage in one article. What are their other notable roles? Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You yourself already listed Sho from Mod Psycho 100 as another notable role. Please stop contradicting your own previous statements, and please for the love of God stop bludgeoning the AFD. This is beyond ridiculous at this point. 64.231.240.160 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're one to talk about "bludgeoning" when I was just complying with deletion policy and replying calmly with counterarguments, which is perfectly acceptable behavior. You don't get to talk down to me again, you block evading IP. Look forward to the range block. If you don't want to participate in this AFD, then just say so. I've had enough with your rudeness.


 * But anyway, I did not contradict myself. I did list Sho at the top, but the role has no coverage and it's not a main role. I only mentioned it because it's the only other role that kind of stood out other than Shinji. It's hard to determine how notable it is due to lack of coverage. Beyond Sho and Shinji, are there any more notable roles? If not, then I doubt that the subject meets WP:ENT. Also, I was asking Adam, not you. He can talk for himself. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The canvassed IP hopping troll has been range blocked. This makes it two times that the IP has been blocked for persistent harassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I agree with the reasoning of AdamF in MO.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Huffington Post Contributors are user-generated content and don't contribute anything to notability. The entire claim of notability here is based on a credit (not insignificant, but isn't a substitute for WP:N -- prominent roles are good indicators of notability, not a free pass; we need to write an article based on sources after all, not on credits) and the Vice article. The latter is quite good. If there were one other thing that weren't a listicle, user-generated content, or a brief mention, I'd be over on the weak keep side. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or stubify. Almost all of the references in the article do not meet the standards for sourcing at WP:VERIFIABILITY. The only usable source in the entire article is the vice article. The article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. However, given the several prominent voice roles which are verifiable through the vice article, the subject does pass criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR. This leaves us with two options: 1. Delete for lack of significant coverage; or 2. Stubify by removing all unusable sources and unsourced content to avoid BLP violations. I am ok with either.4meter4 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire Vice article only talks about Shinji, though. The subject's other roles aren't mentioned. I'm doubtful that the subject meets WP:ENT due to only one notable portrayal. That being said, I agree that the article has only one usable source, hence failing WP:SIGCOV. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:08, 27 October 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.