Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Gabrielli


 * 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. Black Kite (t)  00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Elisa Gabrielli

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This actress doesn't appear to have garnered any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No suggestion that she meets any subject-specific criteria, either. Bongomatic 03:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nominator hit it on the head: there are no independent sources other than IMDB listed, and she has not done anything as an actress to meet WP:BIO's criteria for actresses. —C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is another case where Wikipedia's notability requirements prevent encyclopedic articles for people with extensive credits. Hundreds of obscure dead composers and their works and interpreters would not have Wikipedia articles if those rules were not (correctly) disregarded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Article's nominated state aside, her rather long career as actress and voice artist IS properly sourcable. The number of different AKAs simply makes doing so a bit difficult.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Her extensive list is also confirmed by Special:WhatLinksHere/Elisa Gabrielli. The reason for this deletion request is that all that work has not generated any "significant coverage in reliable sources." Does she meet WP:ENT?
 * I think it important to remember that WP:GNG is set in place to assist editors in determining notability when WP:SIGCOV is available. The SNGs, such as WP:ENT, are set in place to assist in determining notability when SIGCOV is lacking.  One does not trump or over-rule the other. Both are parts of WP:N, they are intended to work together, and not to be set at odds.  A reliable source used to verify a fact or assertion need not itself have to be SIGCOV, as the standards of BLP require verifiability of assertions, not significant coverage of assertions. We have two different and sometimes confused concepts: The required WP:ENT verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV, if such verifiability is found in RS suitable for the topic being discussed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which verified prong of ENT do you think has been established? Bongomatic 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ENT#1. See below. 07:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * update - User:Juniper99, who admits to being the subject of this article, has come up with a bunch of links of varying qualities, which have been pasted to the talk page of the article. She readily admits to not being computer savvy, and asks that somebody take a look at them before participating further in the discussion. I have been contacted by her in Real Life, and thus will not be further participating in the AfD discussion, to avoid any appearance of NPOV violation. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. For those who feel the GNG trumps all other guidelines, we now have sources which address the individual and her work. I'll be away from the keyboard for a few hours on some auditions, but will look to address sourcing when I return... unless someone else does so in the interim.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that after the above two messages were written, for reader convenience I added links to four of the sources of the list given by Juniper99 at Talk Elisa Gabrielli. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per verifiability of career and sources found and offered that address this individual directly and in detail. Adding them to the article is an issue best adressed throuh regular editing and not requiring a deletion. Is she the most notable ever? Nope. Is she just notable enough? Yes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you basing your conclusion on the GNG, ENT, or some other guideline? There isn't coverage of sufficient depth to meet GNG, and I don't see any claims of any prong of ENT being met. Bongomatic 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both actually... My keep is based on the GNG for she and her work being addressed in a more-than-trivial manner in reliable sources as offered by User:Bob K31416, and through my understanding that the GNG itself not require that the sources speak only about the artist, as long as she is spoken of in a more-than-trivial fashion... and ENT#1 for her "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and such roles being verifiable in multiple reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Toonzone isn't a reliable source, so GNG isn't met. The verifiable roles don't, in my estimation, meet the "significant" threshold. Bongomatic 07:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are sources other than the questioned ToonZone, and his and other non-ToonZone sources speak of her in a more-than-trivial manner. For instance, many speak about the growth of her character in the Madagascar films. However, there are many more AKAs of her to search through, and many other productions to consider. And with WP:ENT, we do not judge notability by only the least that a voice artist has done. We look at the best, and can consider if a large body of work is worthy or note.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt and per my interpretation of WP:GNG. You know, the darnest thing, the nominator here argues "delete" for this stub that has one strong RS with in-depth coverage of the subject and some additional possibly intangible indicators of notability, yet here [] the same editor argues "strong keep" for a similar stub (that he created) that has one strong RS with in-depth coverage of the subject and some additional possibly intangible indicators of notability. Hm. It must be irrelevant, because I am sure no upstanding WP editor would have double standards. Respectfully, Turqoise  127  03:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "strong RS" are you referring to? By the way, I didn't opine "strong keep" on the other AfD you reference. Bongo<small style="color:blue;">matic 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There only is one reference listed, Bongomatic. Please do not patronize me. The Toonzone website offers an in-depth interview about the subject herself. That is a strong RS for me. Also, since I see much on there about voice over actors, it is an indicator that she is respected by her peers. Oh, and sorry, you voted "Speedy keep" on the other AfD I reference, and proceeded to write a novel in its defense. Thanks for that correction. Turqoise  127  05:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked in news archives and book and see no evidence that Toonzone is a reliable source. <small style="color:green;">Bongo<sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small style="color:blue;">matic 07:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After doing a search for toonzone news in Wikipedia article space, it looks like the source has been considered reliable enough to use in many Wikipedia articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here the sources is purportedly being used to establish notability, not simply verify a fact. Sources may be sufficient for the latter without being sufficient for the former (indeed, facts that are not controversial may be sourced from a very wide array of sources). <small style="color:green;">Bongo<sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small style="color:blue;">matic 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In trying to understand your last message about what reliable sources are for this discussion, I looked at WP:GNG which stated,
 * "* "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline."
 * Is this what you meant in your last message? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV is an easier way to determine notability... but not the only way. I believe the confusion is found in how one equates verifiability with notability. It is just as you find... while both verifiability and notability have a requirement for reliable sources as the required mandate, notability is found through the verifiability of an assertion, and not through the assertion itself having significant coverage. If the "assertion of notability" is having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, etc, that asserted fact requires verifiability, and not significant coverage, in order to show notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaking two ideas. I'm not suggesting that proof of any assertion a-la ENT have significant coverage (though in fact, some of the prongs of ENT are value judgments rather than black-and-white matters where the quality of the sourcing determines whether editors buy into the assertion). I'm stating that for GNG purposes (SIGCOV notwithstanding&mdash;based on actual outcomes) the quality of the source matters. Significant coverage in niche sources is much less persuasive than sources of record. You may think this ought not to be relevant, but in fact it is a factor taken into account in many editors' opinions at AfD. <small style="color:green;">Bongo<sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small style="color:blue;">matic 10:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is dependent upon the reliability of the source and its appropriateness for citing asserted facts related to a topic. If a source is deemed to be of poor quality, then it should be avoided for purposes of verifiability. "Quality and depth" is an issue related to signficant coverage, and a tendency at some AFDs on an insistance that only significant coverage can show notability, when in fact the SNGs were set in place specifically for instances where SIGCOV's signficant coverage is not present.  Is Variety a niche publication?  Perhaps, but one long accepted as suitable under WP:RS when dealing with the "niche" of actors and film. Are Mercury News and The Baltimore Sun, or even The Gazette niche publications?  No, as they meet the criteria set in WP:RS. While SIGCOV is the easier way to show notability, it is not the only way.  The key to notability is verifiability in suitable reliable sources, a key which does not require nor demand significant coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow some of this.
 * the key to notability is verifiability in suitable reliable sources, a key which does not require nor demand significant coverage.
 * That's just not true. The key to notability established by specific facts (e.g., played professional sports, elected to highest office in a nation etc.) is verifiability in suitable reliable sources. The key to notability established by coverage is significant coverage in reliable sources.
 * I maintain (and am inviting DGG, a generally expansionist editor for his views here) that for GNG notability, the source's significance in establishing notability is (in fact&mdash;regardless of the language of guidelines) is not only the reliability in terms of whether the report is likely to be accurate, but that the general readership, audience, prevalence, and reputation of the publication is highly relevant to whether a particular source establishes GNG notability.
 * Whether a particular source is "niche" is context dependent. A Milpitas restaurant given an in-depth review in the Merc is not notable. A Boston-area technology company in a patent dispute with Apple might be. <small style="color:green;">Bongo<sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small style="color:blue;">matic 01:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not going to debate reaturants. My statement stems directly from policy and the very sentence of WP:V stating "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The policy on verifiability requires a reliable source. It does not require sigficant coverage in a source for it to be seen as reliable.  I heartily agree that significant coverage is an ideal means by which to measure notability, but guideline itself acknowleges that in the absence of SIGCOV, there are still other means by which we might determine if a topic is worthy of notice.. and so it sends us to the SNGs, where we look to see if an assertion is verifiable in a reliable source even in the absence of significant coverage. Lets seeif I can condense this into a few sentences without shooting myself in the foot... As I understand it,
 * as complementay parts of WP:N, Both the GNG and the SNGs offer means by which we may measure notability.
 * both the GNG and the SNGs require verifiability in reliable sources.
 * the GNG works through significant coverage of a topic in a relaible source.
 * the SNGs work through verifiability of an assertion in the ABSENCE of significant coverage, but still in a reliable source.
 * reliability of a source is dependent upon it being third-party, published, and having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * reliability of a source also has to do with whether or not the source can be considered suitable in context to what is being sourced.
 * if a source is properly reliable in context to what is being sourced, it may be used via the GNG if signiciant in coverage, OR used through the SNGs if not.
 * the key to both being verifiability.
 * You above repeat my own words back to me: "The key to notability established by specific facts (e.g., played professional sports, elected to highest office in a nation etc.) is verifiability in suitable reliable sources." You then state The key to notability established by coverage is significant coverage in reliable sources."  I do not see that we are in disagreement, as your response addresses both a notability "key" being found through verifiability of an assertion (SNGs) AND a notability "key" being found through significant coverage (GNG) of a topc. Am I wrong, or are we agreeing that two related keys can open the same lock without jamming each other?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Without reference to this particular source or this particular article, neither of which I have looked at--quite deliberately. Bongo asked me for a general opinion so I want to make sure what I'm saying is general:


 * certainly the differences between sources matter; both for justification for facts, and for evidence of notability, Sources are not in a reliable | non-reliable dichotomy, they're in a spectrum of reliability. There is no source so poor it cannot sometimes be used in so manner; there is no source so authoritative that it is 100% reliable. We usually do in practice take account of this in several ways: An attempt to use a really minor out of the way source to justify notability will often not succeed, depending on the subject--we'll accept it for an area we have trouble getting sources such as some parts of the world and some subjects about which little is written, but not in cases where better sources should be there, if the subject actually is notable.


 * I consider Bongo's restaurant example a good one. I've sometimes expressed it a a question of being discriminating--local newspapers are not discriminating in the reviews of local restaurants--they will get every one of them regardless of importance; home-town sources will not be discriminating in reviews of books by home-town authors; college newspapers are not discriminating in articles about student body politicians. In all 3 cases, if we followed the GNG literally, we'd get grotesque over-coverage. There is no formula--a decision on notability however you go about it is a matter of informed judgement. There is a point in having a standard of notability--basically, it's expected of an encyclopedia. People who look on us as covering everything sometimes do not realize all the things we do not cover. We cover what has always seemed to me a remarkably and probably excessively large number of entertainers, but even we do not cover every one of them. It does not matter as much at what level we set the bar, as it matters that we do have one. (And it also matters that we have some degree of consistency, which I see as the main problem at AfD, where most decisions are made by a small and unrepresentative number of people. I'd much rather we had a consistent standard more exclusionry than I would like, rather than one that's essentially random.


 * There are some real problem cases: for example, restaurants in New York City, where the NYTimes is both a local newspaper and an authoritative international one. (I trust their standard for restaurants for material in the main newspaper, but I do not trust it for their suburban supplements). This is just an example--analogous situations apply in other fields also. I sometimes think we do wrong by regarding national importance as unrelarted to the size of the nation, and its importance in the subject area.  It is impossible to judge correctly at AfD  without thinking, though some people seem to try. that's why I put great weight in unfamiliar fields on the opinion of people who understand the subject, rather than my own ignorant guesses.    DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The example of a local town newspaper which reviews local restaurants does not seem relevant to the reliable source Toonzone News which covers the subject of animation in the world, not just the animation produced and viewed in one town. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG, per sources provided at Talk Elisa Gabrielli.--Cavarrone (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, on balance. I wasn't entirely convinced by the notability argument until I read the talk page. Assuming the offline sources are as significant in coverage as they would appear to be, that looks like pretty convincing evidence for WP:BASIC compliance. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (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.