Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina DeVivo


 * 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 no consensus but leaning towards delete. If the notability is still not asserted after few weeks of time, I would recommend starting another AfD as I think a better consensus could be formed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gina DeVivo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a young actress who has had several drafts written about her over the last day. This one asserts notability, and includes an IMDb filmography, but I'm still unsure whether the lady meets WP:BIO. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep-The article certainly establishes notability and complies with Wikipedia guidelines for notability,Although she is no Halle Berry for example, She has nonetheless taken part in several notable movies and programmes among other things. The article has good references and i can not see a reason why we can not keep it on Wikipedia. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No real assertion of notability, either through the prose or a selection of reliable sources, thus verifying the article. Many of the roles Gina has achieved are redlinks, therefore I come to the conclusion that if the programmes aren't notable, why should the cast? 'fraid it doesn't meet biographical guidelines either. Rudget . 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that on her partial TV & filmography credits, only 3 programmes are red-linked, out of 10, which is perfectly normal. Other programmes are notable and sometimes even famous, e.g Scrubs and Hannah Montana. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - a review of her parts indicate that she has bit parts as "Teenager At Wedding" etc. Her most significant role is 3 appearances as a minor character in a series which isn't sufficient for me to say she meets the requirement of "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions."  Also, there is no press coverage or any reviews of her works. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think this article deserves to stay since it meets the criteria of notability.  A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An IMDB site has been provided as proof to notability. She has notable roles such as ABC's Miss Guided, Nickelodeon's Just Jordon, NBC's Scrubs, Disney's Hannah Montana, and HBO's Lucky Louie.  Just because "one writer" thinks her roles are "insignificant" doesn't mean someone else does. A actor doesn't just start off with the "BIG" role, they have to do a lot of roles, big and small, before they become well known. For the episode on Miss Guided,  she was the main character for that episode. Also the creators of Just Jordon created more episodes for Gina to be in after she did one episode. THEY didn't think her role was insignificant. There are other young actors/actresses on the Wikipedia site who have less credentials or biographies than Gina does and they are still allowed to be included in Wikipedia.  Why aren't they deleted then? I think Gina's profile should stay. RingPOPmom (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — RingPOPmom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - This isn't "Gina's site", it's an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Whpq's comment Again, then why are other young actors and actresses who are starting out like Gina, "allowed" to have their name on a Wikipedia page? Some don't even have as many credits, a biography or any press coverage or any reviews of their works on their page. comment added by RingPOPmom (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 January 2008
 * Reply - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those other articles are about actors with no reliable sources to indicate notability, some editor will notice and deal with them appropriately.  But under discussion right now is this article.  I suggest you read about notability, reliable sources, and verifiability, as well as the articles for deletion process.  Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the present form, the article does not pass WP:BIO notability guidelines. Just give non-trivial, independent and reliable secondary sources, then I'll reconsider my opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * STUB. Wouldn't this article be classified as a stub? According to Wikipedia, an article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub. I searched Wikipedia and found LOTS of other articles on young (not famous)American child actors and their articles are classified as a stub.
 * As to the question of not passing the notability guidesline. I read the guidelines. IMDB is a reliable source. RingPOPmom (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing two issues. The foremost question is whether the person passes the criteria for inclusion, set out (for entertainers) here - in particular note the words "significant roles", "large fan base", "unique...contributions". IMDB is a reliable source of information, but that's in relation to citing reliable sources, not notability. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 12:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment About IMDb as a reliable source, due to controversy issues about this, IMDb cannot be used as a secondary source. It can only be used as a tertiary source. If you have only IMDB as a backup for the notability of this subject, then the subject is not a notable actor. I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Where does it say that IMDB is not allowed to be used as a secondary source? I also clicked on the link you had in blue that said "controversy issues" and all it gave me was IMDB links. RingPOPmom (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - See this dicussion. Essentially, there is insufficient oversight of IMDB content to make it really reliable.  And for the purposes of notability, IMDB is a comprehensive compendium of movie, and more or less television related material, with inclusion encompassing self-submitted material so being listed on IMDB does not indicate notability.  If anybody can come up with newspaper or trade journal articles that are about Gina DeVivo, then I'll be convinced about notability.  For example, did Variety do an article on her?  That is the sort of thing that is being looked for when trying to find reliable sources to establish notability.  Note, I've already searched the Variety site and all she has is standard bio directory entry that's skimpier than IMDB. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the link should be Citing IMDb. Dekisugi (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think this article should be kept. Her recurring role as Widow on the Nickelodeon show Just Jordon is a significant role and that role was just started to appear on the show. The writer's strike, however, put a damper on any new episodes being produced for that show until the strike is over. RingPOPmom (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - please only !vote once. You are free to add additional commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I created the page... I want the page deleted
. I'm tired of trying to defend whether the acting roles she did were "signifcant" enough to the other Wikipedia editors. I know the things she's done ARE significant. So screw it. Take her article off. And by the way...Whpq...get a life.... you are the only one who keeps coming back here on a daily basis to add your "two cents" in. Who cares. You already said what you wanted. Move on to another article. RingPOPmom (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, at the risk of confirming that I have no life, I will reply. Although it may not seem so, I've answered to try and help you.  I've pointed out the conditions under which this article can be kept.  I've asked you if you can find press coverage.  If there is none to be had now, that does not preclude the recreation of an article for her if she does become more notable will press coverage to demonastrate it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (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.