Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Kennedy


 * 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, although this will probably require some explanation. For the benefit of anyone wandering to this AfD after the fact, Ellen Kennedy is a Canadian actress who primarily works as a voice actor, providing voices and dubbing for foreign-language works and the like. The question is over whether or not she passes WP:NACTOR, specifically criteria 1, which states that a person is notable if they "[have] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Those editors arguing for the article to be kept point to Kennedy's long string of voice acting roles, and the fact that she won a Jessie Richardson Theatre Award. Those arguing in favour of deletion state that voice acting does not on its own confer notability without reliable sources, and that there is no evidence that the Jessie Awards are notable, the sole citation coming from the Award's website.

The answer is to be found in the intention behind secondary notability guidelines such as WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia is built on the principle of verifiability, which is precisely why the general notability guideline and its subsidiaries mandate multiple, reliable third-party sources - the intention is to avoid having material that is not verifiable to such a source. If an article's subject is covered by third-party sources, chances are we can write an article in which every potentially controversial statement is verifiable. As well as these guidelines, there are also the secondary notability guidelines, such as WP:NACTOR. These operate on the principle that if someone is "important" enough, they will most likely be covered by reliable sources, and as such we should have an article on them and wait for additional sourcing to turn up. The question thus becomes whether or not voice acting is "important" enough that it will have coverage.

Keep commentators state that voice actors are not given the media coverage that they are due. This is fair enough. It also means that an article can't be justified under WP:NACTOR; secondary guidelines exist on the proviso that the person's role means they will, somewhere, be covered by the media or other sourcing. In the absence of such sourcing, and in a situation where even those in favour of keeping the article agree that sourcing is unlikely to turn up, such an article does not fall within the spirit of either the primary or secondary notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Kennedy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed prod of obscure voice-actress. Her career to date seems to have involved mainly roles dubbing Japanese anime into English, and direct-to-video productions. Therefore no indication that she meets WP:NACTOR. No sources for live performance claims [stated in the article's lead], or any evidence (from Google News or Books) of any substantive coverage whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Subject had a lead role in Maison Ikkoku, a major series. Edward321 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: the (voice) role of Kyōko Otonashi in Maison Ikkoku was originally performed by Mariko Ishihara (herself not warranting an article). Kennedy only took the role in the English dub of the series -- and it is not clear that this derivative work is a "major series" in its own right. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep--criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", and her roles in English dubs of anime definitely qualify. English dubs of Dragon Ball Z, Hamtaro, and Escaflowne have all seen wide release on broadcast or cable TV in the US and Canada (not merely direct-to-video release). WP:NACTOR specifically mentions voice acting, so I'm not sure why a lack of live performances would be relevant. Meelar (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd then that none of the articles on those series actually mentions her. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was considered a reliable source ;) Seriously, though, are you disputing the fact that she filled the roles in question? Because if not, I don't see that her presence in other articles is relevant. She clearly has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows, and is therefore notable. What part of that do you disagree with? Meelar (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. If you think it would be best, we could put in cast lists on each show's page, but it seems a bit excessive.
 * No. As you can see from my above 'correction', I am disputing whether a role only in the dubbing of the original series into one non-original language (how many languages have they been dubbed into?) is a "significant role", particularly when that role appears to have garnered little in the way of notice on Wikipedia, or anywhere else. Given that selection for such dubbing roles generally appears to neither indicate that an actor was previously notable, nor confer as a consequence much in the way of notice, and thus notability, it is reasonable to question (or "dispute") whether they are "significant roles". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously a notable actress. She won a notable award.  And she hasn't just done dubbing, but original films also.  You don't have to get to a movie theater to be a notable film.  Even dubbing is notable, since it doesn't matter if some other voice actor did the lines before you in a different language.   D r e a m Focus  11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Obviously" Dream Focus is making it up as he goes along, as obviously there is nothing to indicate that the Jessie Award (whose article's sole citation is to its own website) has any particular notablity (even if it wasn't obvious that the claim that Kennedy had won it is unsourced). Obviously direct to video productions are rarely of any particular significance, and equally obviously, Dream Focus has presented no evidence that any of Kennedy's videos have been an exception. Dubbing roles are generally obscure -- as third party sources very rarely even mention them. Shorter Dream Focus: "Everything Is notable, in its own way." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and stop it with the personal attacks. If you bothered checking Google news archive search you will find that reliable sources do mention people being nominated or having won this award.  They'd not mention it if it wasn't notable.  And you don't need others to tell you someone's performance was notable.  They played a significant role in a notable production, then they pass the requirement for being a notable entertainer.  Queen Genevieve in Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper for instance.   D r e a m Focus  17:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Dream Focus, mere passing mention in a relatively small number of publications does not make an award notable. Nor does your mere WP:ITSNOTABLE assertion make a direct-to-video production notable. And yes, Wikipedia requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- something that both Kennedy herself, and Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper, both lack, "to tell you someone's performance was notable." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You regularly appear in AFDs like this where you argue with everyone else about what WP:ENTERTAINER and other guidelines mean, and yet everyone else still says Keep, and the article is kept. You do not need someone telling you someone's role was notable in a production.  If the work is notable, then anyone who made a significant contribution to it is notable.  And if you doubt the award is notable, take it to the reliable sources page.   D r e a m Focus  19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I actually look at the sources, rather than simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE (with or without an "obviously" tacked onto this assertion), as all-too-many-'keep'-!voters do -- yourself included. "You do not need someone telling you someone's role was notable in a production." So if we don't base our evaluations on reliable third party sources -- as policy tells us to, then what do we base it on? Divine revelation? Dream Focus's say so? And there is nothing to take to WP:RSN, as there is no source stating that "the award is notable". To paraphrase an old legal saying: 'if the policy is on your side, pound the policy, if the sources are on your side pound the sources, if neither are on your side then pound the table and state "obviously notable"'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that if a work is significant, and the person played the lead role in a widely-seen official version of it, then they've played a significant role in it by definition. Many of the works cited here are significant; there are sources cited telling us that she did in fact appear in key roles in those works, which you aren't disputing; therefore, she's played a significant role in a notable work, and should be kept. Meelar (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: there appears to be little indication that voice-only roles, either in animation, dubbing into a foreign language (or both) are accorded any particular 'significance' or recognition by the video/television/movie industries. This is perhaps due to the lack of any strong recognisability accruing to the roles. Regardless, it is the animator (or original visual actor) that is perceived as the 'star', not the voice-actors. Wikipedia would appear to have two choices in such circumstances -- it can either allow WP:GNG to guide its interpretation of WP:NACTOR and consider that significant roles are those that generally garner significant coverage -- which has the advantage of generally resulting in articles on purportedly-biographical topics that have a reasonable level of biographical coverage. Alternately, it can impose its own subjective, expansive and independent interpretation of significant role -- resulting in a large number of articles that are little more than lists of roles cobbled together from WP:PRIMARY sources. Given that the latter would appear to be an invitation do violate WP:NOR, I believe it is WP:COMMONSENSE to go with the former. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google news archive search for "voice actor" reveals 5,420 results. Voice actors are covered for a number of things.


 * One news article is titled Piglet cartoon voice actor dies‎.
 * Another says Veteran Cartoon Voice Actor Dies The Robesonian - Dec 2, 1985 LOS ANGELES "Bill Scott, the voice of Bull winkle the moose, George of the Jungle and Dudley do-right of the Mounties..."
 * And I see one titled Walter Edmiston, Keebler elf voice actor, dies in Los Angeles.
 * There are some people notable only because of their work doing voice acting for cartoons. It is a notable profession.  The voices define the characters as much as the appearance.  That's why some prefer buying certain series in their original languages and reading subtitles, because the voice actors are better.  You can easily find reviews for a recent movie from Japan called Gantz which critics criticized the voice actors for doing a horrible job on the dub.  Point is, voice acting is of course taken seriously by the industry and the news media.   D r e a m Focus  05:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let us see, we have WP:GOOGLEHITS, an actor who had a considerable live-role resume (Pooh's Heffalump Movie was simply his "last outing") -- so is hardly indicative, an obituary in The Robesonian (hardly a prominent publication) and yet another obituary. In fact all the cited examples are obituaries. Would it therefore be cynical to suggest that the most prominent thing voice actors do is to die? An accomplishment that Kennedy has yet to add to her resume (and a reminder of a one of Martial's epigrams that I studied in highschool Latin -- You puff the poets of other days, The living you deplore. Spare me the accolade: your praise Is not worth dying for.). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing the general notability guideline that requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While I find Dream and Hrafn's Lemmon/Matthau dialog droll, the point raised (in so many venues, and in so many ways) is that if no one else can be bothered to write significant coverage on the person we should not do so.  I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources being provided here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to meet the GNG if it meets the other guidelines, thus the reason for their existence. Did you read WP:ENTERTAINER?   D r e a m Focus  22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, did you? While I can admire your passion, I'd highly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the guidelines and policies before referencing them, as you're totally shooting yourself in the foot here.  The shortcut "WP:ENTERTAINER" points to a subsection of Notability (people).  If we start at the top of that guideline and work our way down:
 * At the top there is a big box, "This page in a nutshell." The first line of that box says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
 * The first section after the lede is "Basic criteria." That again states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
 * The second section after the lede, "Additional criteria," says clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included ."
 * It does not require a close reading of the text to see that the primacy of the basic criteria casts its shadow over all the later, subordinate sections. The additional criteria are not intended and have never been accepted as overriding the general notability requirements. This is because the core content policies of Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view all require solid sourcing.  Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and as such if there aren't sources we don't write an article. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's never been how things have been done. I see you tried to remove a long established part of that.  I have reverted it of course.  You are suppose to think for yourselves in these debates, and not just mindlessly follow the ever changing guidelines.  A "satisfying explanation" is fine.  And the core policies are obviously met.  All information is verifiable, there is no original research here, and it is a neutral point of view.  Can you find one example in the article that you believe violates any of these policies?   D r e a m Focus  00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask me something hard next time.
 * Verifiability - ...material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source...
 * Neutral point of view - ... all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
 * No original research - ...must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
 * Please provide significant coverage in reliable sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I already added references yesterday. Do you sincerely doubt anything else left? Everything else can be sourced to primary sources, which aren't in doubt, just by looking at the credits showing who was in the film.   D r e a m Focus  02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw those. I know, me = broken record, but that doesn't meet the general notability guide that requires significant coverage in reliable sources.  If you want to overturn that guideline (and the supporting policies) go and make the arguments on those pages. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although it isn't overwhelming, her work as a whole is sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR #1. If these translations were fan-made then maybe it would be reasonable to expect more coverage as an indication of notability, but here the voice actors are hired by the distribution companies in order to deliver their product to the concerned region, in the same manner that the original actors were hired (and for the same reason). Also, in the case of cartoons, while it is true that most of the "performance" is due to the work of the animators, the voices cannot be simply taken as separate from the character, nor can the cultural effect of those voices on the audience (for better or worse) be ignored. It is true that third party coverage is deficient, but I don't expect any less from the mainstream media. That is not to say that voice acting doesn't get any coverage at all, because it is certainly a notable profession, nor that mainstream media is entirely whimsical, but only to say that the media does tend to focus on subjects that satisfy their (and their readers') immediate needs, so coverage cannot be the one and only measure for inclusion - frankie (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:V is non-negotiable policy. And at the end of the day, the coverage to write a biography on this woman simply does not exist, therefore, it has to be deleted. Courcelles 02:28, 19 July 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.