Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ignoring the SPAs on both sides (Pastapimp, Sadfatandalone, and Sindanda), there is a solid consensus to delete, thanks to the detailed analysis of Lukeno94. Randykitty (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Emily Schooley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about an actress whose roles are largely uncredited and completely unsourced. The only reference appears to be a link to a personal website. A quick google search turns up nothing. This article is a clear case of failing WP:GNG and the article seems to be entirely original research. Winner 42 Talk to me!  18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Nom Upon further investigation it turns out this article was ruled to be deleted in the previous AfD but it appears to never have actually been deleted . This is exceptionally strange and warrants some investigation.  Actually it seems it was, nomed for speedy per G4.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  19:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the article is substantially different to the one present at the previous AfD event, which a gap of 3 years between deletion and recreation would imply a large chance of there being, then it isn't technically a G4 candidate. As to the merits of the subject of the article, all I can seem to find is an incredibly nasty Tumblr/Wordpress/Facebook row between her and some other parties, which I have no intention of going into. None of the films or series she has acted in appear to be of any real note, bar four of them. Now, I'm going to disregard what the article says right now about those roles, because it seems that, quite frankly, someone with a grudge against Schooley has edited this article and removed any remote sign of importance. I would strongly urge anyone reviewing this to do exactly the same (although I have reverted in the valid filmography section). So, what are we left with? Let's start with the web series "Clutch", where she is credited as playing the role of Michelle. I'm not convinced this web series is that notable, and even if it is, I'm not seeing how Schooley's character is particularly notable. "Hot Football Fan" is not going to be a major role in The Dark Knight Rises, assuming that is even legitimate. The role in Small Town Murder Songs also appears to be very minor, as does the one in Being Erica. Her being the main voiceover actress in a minor game is not really doing much for her either. Looking through the version prior to the gutting, I see only a few references that are potentially valid for notability; one is a local paper, Schooley is only mentioned once here, and everything else is either very dubious, obviously no good (IMDB, blogs) or simply doesn't contribute to notability. So, Delete... and I hope this AfD doesn't go the way of the previous one. (Also, sorry for using lots of words, but this mess does need some in-depth analysis!) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is not unusual for a subject to gain notability over the course of 4 years, which was when the previous AfD took place. 12k Google hits is not "nothing", and the nominator does not explain why they find the 25+ sources already in the article insufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Overall this appears to be an embarrassingly ill-considered nomination by, who probably should exercise more diligence in the future. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * GHits are not a sign of notability. I get 1k hits on my own name via that search method, and I've never done anything of note. I'm also strongly doubting that you've checked the sources yourself; they're all either primary, unreliable, local, or passing mentions of this person; sometimes a combination of these. Feel free to show me which sources are reliable AND in-depth on this person that are in the article though, and I may reconsider my !vote. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see several interviews in the list of sources. I agree at GHits are not a good reason for keeping, but the nominator implied there was one source and stated that Google turned up "nothing." An incompetent nom needs to be called out as such. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those interviews are generally not from sources that appear to be reliable to me (The Mind Reels, which is a Wordpress blog, and FilmSnobbery is designed specifically as a promotion tool from what I can see; nothing on that page actually appears to work either, so it fails the verifiability test), do not appear to actually exist (Rogue Cinema), or are local sources (Today's Toronto). The nominator clearly judged the article as it stood, where it definitely did have nothing bar one source, and I also agree that Google really doesn't turn up anything valid, although it may do a few pages in. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for not reading past the first vandal edit before nominating the article for AfD, this was my mistake but perhaps you should read Assume good faith before continuing. Winner 42 Talk to me!  23:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did I violate that policy? VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I didn't realize you could make your own Wikipedia page with made up credits. Did she appear in those films? Yes, but as an uncredited extra with no lines. This is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastapimp (talk • contribs)
 * What evidence do you have to claim this is an autobiography? Please do not reply if the reply would violate WP:OUTING. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that her role in the one notable web series is very easy to verify; thus, the rest of Pastapimp's edits here are questionable to say the least, particularly as they are, so far, a SPA. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article seems likely to have been created by a WP:SPA based on the history of the creator but that is not necessarily a reason to delete it. Neither is the fact that there was an AfD several years ago - a subject can become notable over time. However, this subject seems to easily fail WP:NACTOR with insignificant roles, and there do not seem to be any WP:RS that establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Someone with a grudge against this actor seems to have blanked many of their roles out before nominating this article. "Motives and Murders" is an Investigation Discovery show (the Discovery Network is pretty big). "Black Eve" has been released on DVD and online for distribution, and Emily is mentioned in several horror press articles regarding that film. The Charlebois Post is a major site for Canadian theatre reviews. She's also listed as a notable guest at the Polaris convention, as per their own Wiki entry. The Mind Reels apparently recently went for a world record, interviewing many actors from bigger-named shows. The Mind Reels Guiness Record. A-list, no, but notable yes. 206.248.161.195 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator did not do the blanking; not disputing the fact that someone has a grudge against this woman, however. The several horror press articles appear to be mostly from unreliable sources; blogs, websites of very dubious reliability, or press releases. Barbara Zanter does not appear to be a notable character within that show, and Black Eve being released on DVD and online doesn't make it notable. Not seeing how relevant the Mind Reels' Guinness World Record attempt is. The Charlebois Post doesn't do any more than name-drop Schooley, and besides, that's a blog piece anyway. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I have updated the main article to show that even IMDb lists her as preforming in the listed items, The Ticket (2009) being an example of this. In respect to the the actresses notability; Wikipedia is not a collection of the rich and famous with a notability requirement for entry. It is a collection of the collective knowledge of the internet. Unless someone can prove she was not part of the listed performances than it matter little if she was the lead role or the person holding the tree. Wikipedia is also not the place to wage personal issues or distastes. If you do not like her work do not watch it or read about it. So long as the information here is legal and is not in conflict with copyright laws and is not misleading or containing demeaning content, then it has no reason to be deleted. Sindanda (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I have a personal wikipedia page? No. Because I havn't done anything note worthy. Either has this person. The entire thing is a joke. --Pastapimp (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, do not modify another's entry. If you disagree with me, that is fine and expressing that is encouraged but do not modify another's post. I have removes your strike out.

Second, if you have done work in the arts or another field and it can be confirmed, as hers can, then yes you can have a page to list that. Wikipedia is clear that it does not support abusive behavior and for one user to say that your opinion of her level of notirity is grounds or deletion is abusive.

Thirdly she must be of some notoriety to attract your attention. In the revision history your name mr. Pastapimp shows up a lot and in this open discussion you've altered my own post. For this reason I am opening a request for review on your actions. Sindanda (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's actually explain what happened here; User:Sindanda, who made the !vote above, did not sign their comment correctly (you need to use four tildes, not three), and then Pastapimp went in and appeared to add their own signature into the !vote. This is the state I saw it in, and, given Pastapimp's behaviour, went and struck the !vote as appearing to be both a duplicate vote, and a violation of WP:POINT. I apologize for that error, but Sindanda, please make sure you sign your posts correctly in future (I've fixed them now). I should also note that Sindanda is, right now, a SPA as well, whom I've just had to revert on the Schooley article after they made a mess with policy-violating and wikilink breaking edits. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is actually such a joke. Sindanda is obviously the subject making her own wikipedia page. There is no trolling. I just don't understand how someone who has no notoriety can have a Wikipedia page. --Pastapimp (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pastapimp, why do you keep wasting time slandering this actress, who clearly has fans and a following of her work? Sadfatandalone (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of that, and nor do I necessarily agree that it is the case. Even minor actresses and actors can have their fans. Also, "notoriety" is not required for someone to have a Wikipedia page; notability is. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again I fear this conversation is more personal than constructive to the propose of this conversation. That said false accusations are never good. Now I know their is no requirement for this and I do not have to do this but my name is Carlos Manuel Comes DA Costa. I live in kitchener Ontario and because I'm doing full disclosure here,I have both seen Emilys work and even used her editing company for some of my own work. Now to then point of this article. There is ample evidence, confirmable evidence, of her work. If there is an issue with one of her claims than the should be addressed with an appropriate edit not a page deletion. Sindanda (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Luke's assessment of the article. The subject of article has performed in quite a few, but mostly minor, roles. There is little (real) coverage by secondary sources. Most links included are reviews or mentions of the films in which she had a role, sometimes not even listing her as one of the actors. Currently, I'd say there is no case for inclusion on WP, so I vote delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking sources to show notability; but with reluctance because of the sheer coolness of this being "Hot Football Fan" (uncredited) in The Dark Knight Rises. I hope she soon has notability enough to be an obvious keep. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (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.