Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genevieve Hannon


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Genevieve Hannon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article seems to fail WP:BLP. GNews returns nothing relevant for at least a couple dozen hits (all hits involve mix-and-match names or unrelated people), while nothing leaps out on Google. IMDB offers one unnamed part in one movie which appears to be an indie production and nothing else. The IMDB links provided mainly link to other actresses. In short, I suspect we may have a complex and decently well-orchestrated hoax, but it isn't blatant enough to pull a speedy. Topping it off, I also now see that the editor who made the article has an ID rather similar to the article's title, suggesting WP:COI also comes into play here. Tyrenon (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Keep Genevieve Hannon is a well-respected and known voiceover artist and actress in New York, a client at one of the leading talent agencies in the country and has earned a six-figure living as a full time actor and voiceover artist for over a decade (remember: 3% of actors are working actors, and she is among them). She has held leading roles in dozens of national ad campaigns for companies like Wendy's, Burger King, Verizon Wireless, Morgan Stanley, and has performed over a thousand voiceovers for television and radio, including for networks like MTV and Lifetime. She is a recognizable actress, both by look and sound, and has a solid reputation in her industry, as evidenced by her income, her reviews and her professional reels on her website and other databases and voice banks. When using the Google test, with quotation marks, she turns up 331 results, most of which are professional theater reviews, databases, voice banks containing her professional voiceover reel, and professional websites. The film listed on IMDB was written and directed by one of the head writers of one of the most watched TV shows in the country, The Daily Show. IMDB is not the Bible of the acting industry. Do your homework. Look a little deeper. It is possible you aren't familiar with the acting and voiceover industries, Tyrenon. She is not only notable for her professional achievements in a highly competitive field, but she is relative to a historic figure and has worked professionally with many people with Wikipedia pages. This is definitely not a hoax, and should be considered as a notable living person, and not subject for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Conflict of interest or nonnotability, perhaps, but that does not constitute a hoax at all.Edison (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * — Genevievehannon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENT, one role in a film of questionable notability and assorted uncredited guest roles. The article doesn't help either, providing numerous links for friends and relatives, but nothing conforming to WP:RS for the subject, making searching for references extremely difficult. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Doesn't fail WP:ENT See following: Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. 3 major TV shows, 3 notable plays/musicals with reviews from major publications Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Prolific: over 30 national commercials and over 1,000 voiceovers See other notable Voiceover Artists like colleagues Blaze Berdahl and Sarah Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Genevievehannon, could you please sign your comments? To do that, use four tildes (~) in a row after your comment, the Wikipedia automation will add your name and other info. As for the article, making a living as an actor is respectable, but not necessarily notable. There's no real evidence here that Ms Hannon is notable according to any applicable standards. Delete Kate (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Doesn't fail WP:RS either. See 17 references and 6 external links, including the New York Times, Time Out NY, Artezine, IMDB, Voicebank, all surely "Reliable Sources". What more does one need to show to be defined by Wikipedia "critics" as "Notable" for an entertainer who is clearly prolific and has had several significant roles in plays reviewed by the NY Times and other notable publications, and has been a leader in her field of voiceovers, holding national ad campaigns for Wendy's, Verizon Wireless, Gillette Venus, etc? I highly disagree with the negative speculation and question if those who are commenting truly understand the business of acting in advertising or the voiceover business. Again, see other "Notable" colleagues making a living as actors, Blaze Berdahl and Sarah Hamilton, who have had far fewer notable works recorded yet have Wikipedia pages.--129.85.25.133 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — 129.85.25.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENT. One ref is just to a society listing of a wedding where she took a picture, and sources like blogs or IMDB which do not appear to satisfy the standards for reliable sources. Many of the references are about her relatives her schools, or her teachers, and do not mention her: in Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Not seeing multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the career of the artist. There are links to many reviews of plays she says she was in, which do not even mention her. The article says her appearances such as an elf in a Wendy's commercial are her biggest achievement, but no references are provided. One review makes a reference to her "in the background" as an Andrews sister, but a brief reference does not establish notability. (All that said, I think her voiceover collection from commercials sounds good, especially where he says "Is that a tablespoon?" and she says "Um, that's a fork." A good voice for commercials. Keep up the good work. Get a publicist to place a few  interviews  in a newspapers/ magazines, or get longer reviews or bigger theatrical parts in reliable sources.)  Edison (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable soruces to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Do not agree with Edison on comment about references. As a casting director for national commercials for 20 years, I have to say that there are very few references to actors featured in individual commercials unless an actor is featured in series of spots for a single capaign such as the actors in the currently running Progressive Auto Insurance ads (ie, actor Stephanie Courtney). To date Hannon has been principal actor in over 30 national campaigns and I am well aware of her work as a leading actor in the industry. Commercial actors generally do not get reviews and their spots are open for watching mostly on advertising websites available by subscription, and even there the actors' names are not listed normally. Judging from her profesional resume distributed and stamped by her agency (which is one of the leading talent agencies in the U.S.) and her reel, she is most certainly a leading actress in tv commercials and voiceovers. There is no resource to back this up other than Voicebank and CESD's website, plus some ad industry websites showing her spots. She should list these in external references. I see she already has Voicebank. Besides her acting and performing in dozens of commercials since 1996, and voiceovers since 1999, she has had a legit acting career but no fame (kind of a blessing for actors to work steadily but retain anonymity). Her refernces do in fact mention her and are reiable sources. She is mentioned in Theatre World 1997-1998 for her role of Young Elizabeth in ""Richard III"". She is also mentioned in Artezine's review of her performance as one of the Andrews Sisters in ""Angel Mountain"". The critic wrote, "In the background", which doesn't translate to background actor, but instead refers to the physical position of the actors on the stage - they performed on their own stage to stage right of the main stage where the play was enacted. I saw the show in its run off Broadway as did roughly 1600 theater goers in its 16-performance Equity run. The critic goes on to remark after indeed listing Ms. Hannon as one of the Andrews Sisters, "They are wonderful, capturing the swing style of the '40s' music without outright mimicry, a real ""coup de theatre"". NY Theatre did not mention the actors' names individually, but critiqued their performance to write that their singing sets the period and, "I liked having them perform a few songs in the lobby, before the show proper begins". Gothamist also does not spell out the actors' individual names but describes the Andrews Sisters as sing at the side of the stage and wavered between appreciating it and seeing it as gratuitous period color. These are all well-respected and reliable sources for theater goers in NYC, and I would be careful to understand this article does not in anyway fail the Source Reliability requirement I would also be thoughtful to decide Ms. Hannon's notability as an established and prolific commercial actor and VoiceOver artist. --Publishernyc (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Publishernyc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.