Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Carter


 * 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. Keeping this one, feel free to renominate if needed - but please start improving instead of nominating first :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Holly Carter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Current sources do not appear to demonstrate notability. Mostly IDMB, broken links, blogs, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 03:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find anything to really show that she's particularly noteworthy. Despite the article's assertions that she's Totally Notable, I can't find much of anything that actually talks about her. She has supposedly worked with notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by that factor and we'd need some coverage that actually focuses on her. All I could really find is this rather negative news story. That it's negative doesn't mean that someone can't be notable, but the problem here is that this was the best source I could find. From what I can see from related articles, it looks like there's a definite COI (as there's a contributor called User:Releveent, named after her company). I'd actually recommend speedying this as sheer promo. I'll tag it as such, although someone might be misled by the claims on the article and assume that there's more notability here than there actually is. I only found one possible assertion to notability, an award for a film she produced. However since that's her only claim to notability that looks to have any sort of sources, we could always just redirect to the film itself. As far as the other claims of producing or having a hand in other things, I can't find any true coverage of any of this. The thing to remember is that projects tend to have many, many producers and people working on it. Having a hand in something that was completed doesn't always equate to notability for that person- we have to have coverage that focuses on the individual, which we don't have. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: It does seem as if Ms Carter won a shared Black Reel Awards for A Beautiful Soul, hinting that coverage is available even if not used. Perhaps we might look beyond this article's poor formatting and style and see just how it might be improved to serve the project.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only a non-notable individual, but seems pretty clear from the non-existent sources that this is just another vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... to be quite fair, In actually looking it is found that this person is considered notable enough in her field to be quoted by media in such as Entertainment Weekly nd  Southern Illinoisan  and her work as a producer has caught the attention of numerous reliable sources, and she HAS received the recognition of her peers. Even without sources detailing the minutiae of her life, it could be seen that she meets the intent of WP:CREATIVE#3.  Schmidt,  Michael Q.
 * Well, to be even more fair, and brutally honest, Michael Q. Schmidt, after a quick random perusal of your opinions on deletions, it appears that you weigh in only on (1) films and (2) people that want to be recognized as actors, and every opinion I've seen is either a keep or a comment that attempts to persuade everyone of the subject's notability, and it's difficult to take any of them all that seriously when seen in that context - that is, that you are pretty much 100% in favor of keeping every article about a film or actor that appears on Wikipedia. I don't know what your motivation is, I don't know if it's related to your own film career, but I guess it doesn't matter - how can the rest of us look at your opinion as an objective one when it breaks only one way, every time, seemingly regardless of actual notability? Rockypedia (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rockypedia... WP:ADHOM arguments are never helpful to discussion. Had you investigated further, you might have learned that I am a coordinator over at WikiProject Film, meaning my wishing to support and actually improve articles related to films and actors so as to better serve this encyclopedia is understandable. Worse, your statement that I opt to keep 100% of all film and actor articles is quite provably a false personal attack which I dislike even further. I opt for delete of such fully 50% of the time, and my policy and guideline based opinions are proven more often right than wrong. I understand and have written about WP:COI. So further research might have allowed you to find that I avoid articles related to myself or my film career. So before your false accusation of my having a COI escalates, I invite you apologize for any implication that my "motivation" is anything other than a wish to improve the project, and strikethrough your spurious personal attack.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoah there Rocky. Please don't make any assumptions about Schmidt just because he happens to like editing predominantly film related articles. There is no rule that says that someone has to edit or weigh in on anything other than what they are most interested in. I can personally vouch for Schmidt's character here on Wikipedia. He's more of an inclusionist than I am, but he wouldn't argue for a keep without at least some reasonable basis for the subject's inclusion and when he can't make an argument, he does argue for deletion or incubation. I don't always agree with him, but his arguments are always based upon policy. Schmidt does not argue for inclusion based upon any conflict of interest other than wanting to improve Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I, too, must speak in defense of here. I occasionally edit film-related articles and biographies, and I can't think of another active editor here whose judgement I trust in this topic area more than this one. He knows Hollywood very well, and has the skill and experience to evaluate the reliability of the sources. I don't agree with any editor here 100% of the time, but Michael's contributions here are valuable and impeccable. He is never far off base. It is fine to disagree, but a personal attack cloaked as being "brutally honest" is really "brutally unfair" in this case. I, too, encourage an apology.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe the article is salvageable and will finally have some time Monday afternoon (PST)(12-3-2013) to address issues and show notability under WP:GNG. If deleted before I get to it, I request userfication to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Holly Davis Carter with leave to return to mainspace when fixed up.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep - she looks as if she's on the borderline of notability which just means she needs a good write-up. Michael, you think you can do it?  Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do... but I have been immersed in real-world projects.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:50, 5 December 2013 (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.