Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charonne Mose


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Charonne Mose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable dancer with only lead of notability being a 1995 Emmy winning for Miss America with several Books results showing. However, there is nothing else to suggest notability, a lot of this information is unconfirmed but was actually added by the subject herself as what seems to be a self-bio. News found one result from a website I'm not going to click but it seems passing and minor. IMDb shows she has only had two roles both as a dancer. Multiple searches found nothing else and it is clear that Emmy winning is her only lead of notability because browser searches provide the Books links (note: It appears she now works as a interactive art designer so that explains the dancing absence). The article was actually tagged for speedy but declined due to "Winning an Emmy is a marginal source of notability is a marginal notability" but the article was never improved or nominated for possible deletion. SwisterTwister  talk  05:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO; an Emmy is considered a significant award —Мандичка YO 😜 20:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but there isn't anything to support the article aside from that Emmy Award which frankly may be her best shot. In any case, this is something that would be better mentioned briefly somewhere else (not that I see a good target, and she's mentioned at Template:EmmyAward Choreography 1976–2000). SwisterTwister   talk  06:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean "to support the article." The article can exist as a stub with the basic information, including a simple filmography (from here is a start). Other people may have access to additional RS, such as offline magazines. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Care to comment? SwisterTwister  talk  04:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no significant coverage in any reliable sources. WP:ANYBIO is not an exception to WP:BIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Winner 42 Talk to me!  12:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Think I agree with User:SwisterTwister. Granted an Emmy is a significant award and WP:ANYBIO is relevant, but there really doesn't seem to be any other claim to fame here. I don't think we want a BLP for every single person who ever won an Emmy do we? NickCT (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Having won an Emmy suggests that the subject may be notable, but it doesn't guarantee it. The coverage in reliable sources is too sparse to justify an independent article.- MrX 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep A Emmy (national, not just regional) (winner, not merely nominated) is usually a significant award. I have encountered a number of people where this is the only indication of notability, and wondered about them. But I think we consistently accept and should accept highest level national awards in all fields, because the people professionally in those fields can judge better than we can.  Personally, I consider it leads to overcoverage in some fields I do not care much about, but my own personal interest is not a valid criterion. For the entertainment industry, I usually rely on , and I'd like his opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every person who's gotten an Emmy has gotten a Wikipedia article written about them; there's also the fact that the only reference is IMDb, and IMDb's should only be used as external links, not as references. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Struck indef blocked sockpuppet vote Kraxler (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with DGG here. Also see this. Kraxler (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2015 (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.