Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliza Swenson


 * 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. I'm sorry Monty, you make a decent argument about roles in "notable but minor" films but it doesn't seem to have convinced anybody. Perhaps there should be more discussion on that issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Eliza Swenson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable actress and producer, mainly of direct-to-video productions or in minor roles. Musician in a band which is a redlink. A speedy deletion tag and a prod tag have both been removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. My search prior to PRODing the article turned up no sources that provided significant coverage of the subject. The sources that do exist and mention the subject only do so in passing while discussing movies, which is insufficient to establish notability. Further while some of the movies that the subject was involved with may pass the minimum threshold for inclusion for themselves, they are not notable enough to make this subject notable by association. Monty  845  02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me Monty, In looking at very new article's history and sourcing, I can understand your wish to bring this to AFd without delay. I wish to chirp in though, that even mentions, if they that can be used for policy mandated verifiability, need not themselves be "significant coverage". However, sources that address the subject directly and in detail DO exist (see my "keep" below). Under WP:CREATIVE, if her work is the subject of critical commentary and review in secondary sources, that notability IS hers as the work's creator. And Unfortunately, your last sentence does not reflect the applicable guideline stating "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," as guideline does not instruct that the productions must be on a par with Star Wars, only that they be notable per Wikipedia standards set at WP:NF, and that the roles not be some minimal descriptive, but rather a named charater who is significant to the plot of the film.  In looking at Eliza Swenson, I see far more bluelinks than red.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment. To break them down, WP:GNG requires that the subject has received "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Very few of the sources do more then drop her name into the articles. The ones that do, talk about here only briefly, and certainly not to the point that she was one of the main topics of the article. The interview at is the only exception I saw in the sources you provided, but I question whether rockeyes.com qualifies as a reliable source. WP:ENT I think the criteria that comes closest to being met is 3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I would read that to require that the works be more then just minimally notable, for instance a major motion picture. Certainly there is room to differ on that, but I don't think the criteria is passed. WP:MUSICBIO I'm not sure which criteria you are arguing has been passed. WP:ENT includes Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. But again, I would argue against allowing inherited notability on the basis of films that are rather insignificant themselves, even if those films do pass the minimum notability threshold. I would also mention that all of the other notability criteria are meant to identify subjects that most likely pass WP:GNG, however I maintain that this subject does not pass it, at least based on the sources I have reviewed. Also, while not really important, I'm not actually the one who brought this to AfD.  Monty  845  14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep per meeting or WP:ENT, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. As "Eliza Swenson", we have her work as a composer and as an actress being the subject of critical commentary and coverage in multiple sources. And too, under her AKA name "Victoria Mazze" (lead singer of the goth band The Divine Madness (band)) she, and the works of the band itself, are the recipients of coverage and critical comentary in secondary sources. We can use many of these to properly expand and source the article... an addressable issue that does not require deletion.  RockEyez  Monsters & Critics 1 Monsters & Critics 2 Monsters & Critics 3 Geek Tyrant 1 Geek Tyrant 2 Filmofilia  Monsters & Critics 4  Monsters & Critics 5  Monsters & Critics 6  Monsters & Critics 7  News Times  Heavy  Dread Central  But yes, addressable issues do require addressing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per stated above, "she, and the works of the band itself, are the recipients of coverage and critical comentary in secondary sources." Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt`s findings. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep MichaelQSchmidt's findings are convincing, the subject passes notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:25, 12 September 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.