Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janne Mortil


 * 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. Article rescued, consensus is GNG met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Janne Mortil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no substantial coverage or reliable sources to help source article. Currently only sourced by IMDb. Whilst the opening paragraph credits her in Titanic, it’s not the James Cameron film. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - I could be convinced otherwise if there is some improvement in terms of WP:RS, but a search of her name in quotations on google news comes up with only one article, in Spanish. While her article itself makes her look notable, it doesn't have any sources at all, and seems to rely exclusively on IMDB.  She doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this has probably been WP:HEYed by . I haven't got around to getting access to ProQuest, but am confident others have and have reviewed the new references.  With those references, this article is probably a Keep.  Thanks Nfitz for your work on the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia was not supposed to be an IMDb mirror, unfortunately it has been turned into such, we need to reverse this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Johnpacklambert, you literally only looked at this article for one minute after your delete vote at Articles for deletion/Frank-Joachim Grossmann - how is that time to judge the dozens of easily found references in a quick search, let alone write your delete comment? We need to reverse editors simply casting delete votes without actually doing any WP:BEFORE. How is an actor with years of experience in many national network series and a Gemini Award nominee not likely notable? I question the competence of your participation here. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well said, and I object to this vote as well. Many of us question how JPL rolls: the hit and run votes not aligned with policy, the absence of research, and the failure to comprehending the article's subject or meaning are problematic. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Article does not cite any sources, no reliable sources appear within the first 10 pages of a google search, only 1 hit in my university library databse (a one sentence reference to Mortil in a play in Toronto). Nothing to indicate any reliable sources exist, so unlikely that the article will ever meet WP:GNG. The credits attributed to her via IMDb/the Wikipedia page in question make no argument for her meeting WP:NACTOR criteria 2 especially given that her claim to fame is an appearance in the Titanic tv miniseries. Samsmachado (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I added nine references to the article, include a substantial in-depth piece from the 1979 Vancouver Sun. Also, how is a Gemini Award nominee not notable. User:Samsmachado, what database were you looking at ... there's many references in ProQuest ... though nothing in almost two decades. Also ping . Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, and for adding those references. That said, I am not really sure what to make of them.  As they are available only on a private newspaper archive, I can't read them.  The in-depth in the Vancouver Sun is from when she would have been 12.  How helpful can that be?  The most recent article is almost two decades old for an actress who is supposedly still active.  None of the headlines have her name in them, and many seem to also be about others, so I question whether this is substantial and sustained coverage (but as I said, I can't read them).  Concerning the Gemini Award nomination, I am not sure everyone who has been nominated for a Gemini is notable.  It is an award for Canadian television, which she didn't win anyway.  Being nominated, might not suggest notability in Canada, never mind more generally.  I am still not sure she meets WP:GNG or any of the criteria in WP:GNGACTOR.  Perhaps, I am missing something though, I couldn't read the articles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good WP:HEY work done here, ! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They are available on Proquest, which is available through the Wikipedia library to any editor who requests access. Most city libraries also allow home access to anyone with a library card. She doesn't seem active to me, User:Darryl Kerrigan - seems to have all but retired two decades ago, except for an appearance I couldn't even verify in a 2003 direct to video release that may have have been sat on the shelf for years. And then a single 2018 minor appearance in a 2018 TV episode - that I also couldn't verify. Not surprising that there's little to find online from an actor from last century. Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears my university database (it searches Novanet libraries and the databases we have access to which does include ProQuest as I have used it before) doesn't get all ProQuest documents as I can't access the ones cited in the article. A Gemini Award would be notable, but neither WP:ENT nor WP:ANYBIO nor WP:GNG have clauses about nominations for awards unless someone has been nominated multiple times (see WP:ANYBIO crit. 2). Also, as a Canadian, I would say that one Gemini nominee does not a notable person make. (I don't pretend to speak for all of Canada; this is just my opinion.) Nfitz, could you please enlighten us as to how the sources you have added would meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC (or even WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT)? I don't wish to overwhelm the WP Library by having everyone from this AfD rush to get access to the same articles. Specifically, I am concerned with coverage being significant. As far as I can guess (based on headlines alone, as I apparently do not have access to these things through my university but I digress) the sources added are all trivial mentions aside from the "substantial in-depth piece from the 1979 Vancouver Sun". (Note also that meeting WP:ENT is a sign that the subject is likely notable but (in my opinion) failure to meet GNG generally overrules that likelihood. So I would be uncomfortable voting keep without evidence in favour of meeting GNG.) Samsmachado (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's borderline GNG, with one substantial piece, and then almost two decades of regular coverage of her career. Though how not appearing in every episode (apparently) of a major award-winning national network program doesn't meet WP:NACTOR I don't know - it was one of only five TV shows that started in 1994 in Canadian television - it's not like the hundreds of shows that you get every year now. Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NACTOR requires multiple substantial roles in notable TV shows. (Side Effects (TV series) was cancelled after two seasons presumably due to low viewership and - according to its WP page - never won any Geminis, was only nominated. It happens to be one of 5 TV shows that started in 1994 in Canada that have Wikipedia pages, likely because it's difficult to find WP:RS about Canadian TV in the early 90s and so no one can be bothered to make articles about that.) Side Effects combined with Street Justice might just barely meet WP:NACTOR crit. 1 but without meeting GNG/BASIC, barely meeting WP:NACTOR means the subject probably isn't notable. The big problem for me is that we have no reliable sources citing that she was in most of these shows and none that seem to quantify what capacity she appeared in - ie. how many episodes/what size role/etc. (If this info is included in any of the sources Nfitz found, then these sources should be added to the article and its filmography tables and/or included in this discussion to demonstrate notability.) Hope this clarifies my position. Samsmachado (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when User:Samsmachado, does 29 episodes of Canadian TV, not a large number of episodes, for a 1-hour drama? Especially in the 1990s? How do you relate that to low ratings? I recall disappointment and false hopes at CBC that it wasn't as successful as it's predecessor (similar cast and crew) as Street Legal - but that was unusually popular. Surely it's a bit disingenuous to talk about ratings, given that CBC put it up against the second and third season of X-Files, which was then at it's peak. Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but Street Justice + Side Effects is literally the bare minimum for meeting WP:NACTOR in terms of having "multiple" substantial roles in notable tv shows and/or movies. And, again, I personally am willing to disregard meeting WP:NACTOR (especially barely meeting WP:NACTOR) if the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and there is no evidence that Mortil does. (also, The X-files ratings peaked in seasons 4 and 5 as you can see on its WP page, fyi) Samsmachado (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine for you personally to disregard her meeting the minimum on actor notability, but others find it alarming that you'd disregard policy. Two roles are multiple roles on notable (by Wikipedia standards) shows. If a teacher advocated for a student who passed by 1% be forced to repeat a course, would that be ok? There is indication the subject meets WP:GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not just personally disregarding policy. It is a well accepted fact that meeting WP:ENT/WP:ACTOR does not guarantee someone is notable. (This has been made very clear through discussions about the notability of YouTubers, for example.) This is explicitly stated at WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. 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." (italics, mine) Where is the indication that the subject meets GNG? As far as I can see, there is not significant coverage in multiple independent sources. @DiamondRemley39, you have repeatedly ignored my request (and the requests of others) to prove that any of the sources you have listed contain more than trivial mentions of Mortil. If there is sigcov, I am more than happy to change my vote. But adding a bunch of sources that are all trivial mentions of the subject (which I assume do to lack of evidence otherwise) doesn't do that for me. Samsmachado (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:SNG, "in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page." (emphasis mine). The presumption referred to here is that meeting an SNG only presumes notability. The claim to the SNG WP:ENT/WP:NACTOR is weak here, as we have already discussed. So my argument for deletion based on barely meeting WP:ENT and not meeting WP:GNG is supported by policy. Samsmachado (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Samsmachado, please review the edit history of the article and this AfD. You are mistaken in writing "you have repeatedly ignored my request (and the requests of others) to prove that any of the sources you have listed contain more than trivial mentions of Mortil". I have added no sources and I have been asked for no clarification sources by you or anyone else in this AfD. I've merely completed copyedits on the article. We can agree to disagree on whether WP:ENT is met in full or in part and how much weight that carries, but I assume good faith of the work of Nfitz and encourage others to do the same. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @DiamondRemley39, my sincerest apologies. I confused you and Nfitz. I am sincerely sorry if my tone hurt you. I was confused as this indented discussion was primarily between Nfitz and myself, so I mistakenly forgot to check who I was in conversation with. I should have been more careful to check which user I was referring to. I wrongly thought that because of your insistence that GNG was met without explaining the quality/depth of the sources, that you were Nfitz when you are not. I also assume good faith on Nfitz's part but assuming good faith does not mean assuming notability or source quality when it has not been demonstrated. By assuming good faith, I assume that Nfitz did not add trivial sources in an attempt to purposefully confuse this AfD. I assume good faith in that Nfitz is doing their best to uphold WP policies. But I also acknowledge that Nfitz only explicitly said one of the sources they added was non-trivial and has refused to offer a quantification of the triviality of the other sources. I, again, would like to offer my sincerest apologies and hope that we can return to constructive debate. In that light, I would like to add that you have not made an argument for the subject meeting GNG though you said that "There is indication the subject meets WP:GNG." Would you be able to clarify what you mean by this? Are you relying on an assumption of good faith to demonstrate that the sources added by Nifitz are non-trivial coverage? Sorry again for my earlier mistake.Samsmachado (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The addition of the references described don't inspire confidence, particularly in the light of their naming. Finding any information on the article subject is very hard but a through examination finds a bit-part actor in one-off episodes and low-budget tv films, over quite a long career. but there is no coverage as she is almost invisible, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Vancouver was her home town.  scope_creep Talk  01:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How are either of her main regular roles, in Street Justice and Side Effects - both major prominent programs on the main national netowrk - "one-off episodes" or "low-budget tv films". How, User:scope_creep is a Gemini nominee not notable - it doesn't get higher than that. Also, I'm not sure the relevance of Vancouver in your comment - many of the references are from the other side of the country - and Side Effects her biggest role' was shot in Toronto. I'm not familiar where Titantic was shot. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got to chime in here too that Vancouver is more than her hometown. It's a hub of the Canadian television industry. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as roles in the television series of Street Justice and Side Effects meet WP:ENT #1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Other roles may contribute to her meeting this as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments for the closer:
 * remarks related to the age of one piece of coverage about her being from 1979 should be disregarded; a good source is a good source; discrimination against professional minors or 1970s journalism has no place here.
 * there is a tendency for Wikipedians to treat with skepticism the articles that aren't in the first Google results or are not full-text on the open internet. That's going on here and to be blunt that's a personal problem; there is a benefit to going to extra mile by using local, regional, and Wikipedia libraries to improve the encyclopedia.
 * there is a tendency in AfD for those who have voted to stick by their votes even when the nomination concerns (IMDb-only sourcing; notability) have been addressed. (Oh, and it is somehow a problem that she wasn't in the more popular Titanic of the 1990s... IMO, an inappropriate consideration in the nom.) It's now clear that she passes muster thanks to some in-depth WP:HEY work. If the article is deleted, it will be viewed by some as one more article deleted about a woman who was, in fact, notable enough. Regards! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @DiamondRemley39 RE: your comment on “inappropriate consideration” - when I first read the article I assumed it was the film, and wanted to clarify in nomination as I felt it was unclear in the article. Not commenting on the miniseries at all, other than it is categorically less notable than one of history’s highest grossing movies. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep thanks to everyone who has helped to improve this article considerably. Having reviewed the sources added, I now believe it’s in a far better position than when I nominated it and passes WP:GNG. This is predominantly thanks to sources on Proquest which are missed by WP:BEFORE procedures. I won’t be withdrawing my nomination as there are still other delete !voters above. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, based on improvements by . Bearian (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, by . Meets GNG now. Britishfinance (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the situation has drastically improved since the AfD, I can say it meets WP:GNG now. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2020 (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.