Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Barrell (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 keep.  Sandstein  17:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Katherine Barrell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Despite Articles for deletion/Katherine Barrell having closed as a delete, a good faith attempt was made to recreate this with more sourcing than was shown the first time — so I'm not speedying this G4 as a recreation of deleted content. But unfortunately, the new sourcing isn't better, and still doesn't get her over the WP:NACTOR bar — except for one reliable source which verifies the existence of a series that she's in but fails to contain any mention of her at all, the sourcing here is still parked entirely on blogs, primary sources and user-generated content sites (Digital Journal, especially, being notorious for frequent misuse as a platform for creating and distributing self-published "sourcing" to support the creation of Wikipedia articles — a concern which is not assuaged by the fact that the Digital Journal article is conveniently dated as having been created and posted to DJ during our conduct of the first AFD discussion.) There is still zero evidence of any reliable source coverage about her, which means this is still not includable. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Specifically in regards to the dating of the Digital Journal article, I wouldn't be too concerned about self-published sourcing in this case. The publishing date indicates that the interview would have taken place following episode 9 of Wynonna Earp (in which Katherine Barrell's character features quite prominently). That timing appears legitimate and separate from the original deletion discussion of the Katherine Barrell article. UvaSEP (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to apologize for accidentally delsorting this under academics, I meant to do so under actors and filmmakers. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep/Do not delete. Katherine Barrell has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject:


 * Learning to move on: actress Katherine Barrell on My Ex-Ex @ thetfs.ca
 * My Ex-Ex: Q&A with Katherine Barrell Career @ www.shedoesthecity.com
 * Burlington's Katherine Barrell stars in romantic comedy @ www.insidehalton.com
 * Wynonna Earp at SDCC 2016: Katherine Barrell and her role as Nicole Haught @ www.syfy.com
 * Katherine Barrell – Wynonna Earp – Starry Constellation Magazine @ starrymag.com
 * Exclusive Interview with “Wynonna Earp” Star Katherine Barrell @ talknerdywithus.com
 * Wynonna Earp's Katherine Barrell talks 'WayHaught' (Includes interview) @ www.digitaljournal.com
 * Interview with Wynonna Earp's Katherine Barrell @ fangirlish.com
 * Wynonna Earp: Interview: Katherine Barrell @ scifibulletin.com
 * Katherine Barrell On Wynonna's Nicole Haught and Waverly Earp @ www.scifitalk.com
 * WYNONNA EARP’s Katherine Barrell Talks TV’s Haughtest Couple @ ohsogray.com
 * Wynonna Earp - It's all about the WayHaught. Interview with Katherine Barrell @ www.spoilertv.com
 * Wynonna Earp’s Katherine Barrell Talks To 4YE About The Way Haught Romance And Fan Support @ www.4ye.co.uk
 * Wynonna Earp's Dominique Provost-Chalkley and Katherine Barrell @ www.themarysue.com
 * Dominique Provost-Chalkley and Katherine Barrell - The TV Junkies @ www.thetvjunkies.com
 * 'Wynonna Earp' actors discuss LGBT representation at SDCC @ www.hypable.com
 * Tales of the Black Badge – A Wynonna Earp Fan Podcast #20 – Dominique Provost-Chalkley And Katherine Barrell (aka WayHaught) Interview @ tuningintoscifitv.com

Additional:


 * The last word – Katherine Barrell, B City Magazine, Fall 2015, p 56.
 * Katherine Barrell Talks Wynonna Earp Season Finale (June 24, 2016) @ www.scifivision.com

Besides web-based entertainment media, actors appearing in science fiction, fantasy, and supernatural television series receive coverage in media sources that cater to these genres. Her fan base is on the rise and her role in "Wynonna Earp" is being actively promoted by Syfy. In addition to acting credits, Barrell is an independent film director, producer, and writer. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The InsideHalton article looks especially useful, as that's a newspaper profile of her. Tabercil (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nearly all of those are blogs, primary sources or user-generated sources, which are classes of sourcing that Wikipedia policy explicitly rejects as not reliable or notability-assisting. The only one that even slightly counts for anything at all is Inside Halton, but that's a community weekly newspaper which is neither widely distributed enough, nor archived anywhere that we could retrieve the content if the website ever died — so it's also not a source that can aid passage of WP:GNG in and of itself. Get back to us when you can show coverage in major market daily newspapers on the order of the Toronto Star, the Calgary Herald or The New York Times, or magazines on the order of Entertainment Weekly — the sources you've listed here so far are not aiding your case. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Get back to us...." ??? What is your problem? You obviously don't seem to know very much about New Media that targets science fiction, fantasy, and supernatural genres. Breaking News...they're not going to be The New York Times or any cog in the wheel of old media. Perhaps WP needs to wake up and smell the 2016. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules about what constitutes reliable sourcing require (a) an established record of being a reputable source of information, and (b) that the content is archived somewhere so that if the website ever dies or prunes old content or otherwise disappears the web URL in question, the reference will still be a valid one because it will still be recoverable somewhere (the source's verifiability, in other words, has to be permanent.) If those rules bias our sourcing pool toward "cogs in the wheel of old media" and make it harder (not impossible, but harder) for a new media startup to clear the bar, then that's not our problem — websites can and do shut down and/or prune old content to clear server space, so it's a central rule that to count toward GNG, a source has to have some kind of "this source will always be accessible to us, even if we have to dig back into old microfilms again, regardless of what might happen to this particular web URL in the future" permanence, because the source is no longer verifiable otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) What makes you think the sources aren't reputable? Some of them are the same press representatives that participate in media press conferences for TV shows (you would know this if you were familiar with electronic media covering science fiction, fantasy, and supernatural genres); (2) "content is archived somewhere". All the sources referenced-above are archived. Editors such as I always make sure that citations for any WP article we edit are also archived. Have you heard of the Internet Archive? Check it out. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has specific objective rules to determine what makes a source reliable or not reliable, and every one of the sources under discussion in this subthread explicitly and objectively fails one or more of them. I am not making a personal judgement about whether I personally trust the source or not; I'm simply applying Wikipedia's established rules about the factors that determine whether a source counts as reliable and notability-conferring or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added a Calgary Herald article and coverage from Toronto Film Scene. We now have coverage from Entertainment Weekly and Calgary Herald, both of which you suggested as examples of sources that are notability-assisting.  This is in addition to the Collider article (which is owned by Complex Media), and a film magazine.  These appear to be reputable, recoverable sources. UvaSEP (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the references list before you add citations because the Calgary Herald article already existed as a referenced source. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do! UvaSEP (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Calgary Herald: still not about her, but merely contains a single glancing mention of her name in the process of not having her as its subject. You're not getting how this works at all — she has to be substantively the subject of a piece of reliable source coverage before it counts toward getting her over GNG, not merely have her existence namechecked in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then: the B City Magazine interview in the above list of sources qualifies. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Her existence is not merely namechecked in an article about something else. The Calgary Herald article is devoted to a show in which she is present, and portrays her as an integral part of said show, specifically mentioning the impact of her character within the LGBT community.  Furthermore she is the subject of both the Toronto Film Scene article and the B City Magazine article, and is one of the primary subjects of the Collider article.  In a similar fashion, she is one of the primary subjects of the Entertainment Weekly article, which also included her as a subject in their SDCC 2016 star portraits.  These articles represent substantive, reliable source coverage of the subject. UvaSEP (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * B City Magazine is a local-to-her-own-hometown blog hosted on WordPress, which means it is not a reliable or notability-conferring source — WordPress blogs, on which anybody can publish anything they want with no editorial oversight for accuracy or notability, are never valid sources for anything on Wikipedia. The Calgary Herald article is not substantively about her, but contains one single solitary mention of her name. Toronto Film Scene is also a blog; it falls close enough to the line between the kind of blogs we can accept for sourcing and the kind that we can't that it would be acceptable for some supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been passed by stronger sources, but it does not count toward the establishment of whether GNG is passed or not. And an interview video clip, in which a person is effectively talking about herself, does not count toward the establishment of GNG either — things people say about themselves in interviews can be self-serving or hype-inflated or self-promotional in nature, where GNG requires that third parties are writing or broadcasting content about the topic in the third person. So just like community newspapers and the better classes of blogs, a Q&A-style interview, regardless of whether it's in video or print format, does not assist passage of GNG and may be used only for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been met. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "B City Magazine is a local-to-her-own-hometown blog hosted on WordPress". Not.the.source.I.posted. What I used is the PRINT edition of the magazine. Did you bother to look at the source I linked? Obviously, no. And since when is a local magazine or newspaper not an acceptable source? What do you think The Toronto Star is? You've got an axe to grind ... this is clear. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you won't accept reliable source coverage about her work, and won't accept interviews about her, what possible sourcing is left? Over 20 references have been provided, and yet you have rejected all of them.  Such a bar is unreasonable.  UvaSEP (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep/Do not delete While some of these sources do appear to be user-generated, others appear to be reliable secondary source coverage. The Digital Journal is a news service, and while some content is user generated, the article in question was written by a top editor of the site with 20+ years of experience. In a similar manner, the hypable article was written by an senior staff member with a Masters in Journalism. Richard Crouse's recognition of Barrell's short film Issues appears to be legitimate, as he is regarded as one of Canada's top film critics. Furthermore SyFy's coverage of Barrell's presence at SDCC 2016 appears to be a reliable secondary source, as does the Inside Halton newspaper article (I fail to see a distribution size requirement for news organizations). These sources in tandem support Katherine Barrell's status as an individual who has received significant coverage. UvaSEP (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User-generated sites are always automatically invalid sourcing for a Wikipedia article with no exceptions ever, so Digital Journal is a permanent non-starter. Hypable is also not a reliable source, for the same reason. Richard Crouse "recognized" her short film on his own blog, not in an article published in a newspaper — and his "recognition" consisted of acknowledging the film's existence in a "listings directory" manner, not writing anything substantive about it, so it helps nothing. And yes, GNG most certainly does place limits on what newspapers count toward satisfying it and what newspapers don't; major market dailies support notability, while community weeklies may be used only for verification of stray facts after an article has already gotten over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Crouse's listing is the result of his curation of what he considered to be the best short films of 2013. In any case we are still left with at least two  reliable secondary sources with SyFy's SDCC 2016 coverage and the Entertainment Weekly reference, with a newspaper article and Crouse's professional recognition as additional support. UvaSEP (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SyFy is the network her show is on, so it's a directly affiliated primary source which is not independent of her — the network has a vested interest in publicizing the cast members of its own shows. The newspaper article is still a community weekly newspaper that does not count toward GNG. And Crouse's "listing" is still just a glancing mention of her existence in a blog entry that isn't about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Entertainment Weekly ref added. Meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Entertainment Weekly reference is not about her; it just mentions her existence in a glancing manner alongside several of her other castmates, and fails to be substantive coverage with her as its subject. And it takes more than just one citation to one reliable source to pass GNG, especially when that one citation is as weak as that one is. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Entertainment Weekly reference is interviewing the cast in anticipation of Wynonna Earp's second season, in which she is presented in an equal manner. UvaSEP (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how "substantive coverage about her" works. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just public relations blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Collider reference added. UvaSEP (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here plus she's getting other roles besides Wynonna Earp such as this one. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All three of those sources have already been addressed above as to why they're not acceptable: Digital Journal = WP:USERG sites are never acceptable referencing under any circumstances; EW = not substantively about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence. Inside Halton = community weekly newspaper, not widely distributed enough to count as GNG-conferring coverage. In terms of coverage that gets her over GNG, we're still sitting at zero here. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources work for me. I believe them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. Wikipedia has objective rules about what's a reliable source and what isn't; WordPress blogs and user-generated content cannot and do not count as reliable sources regardless of what you think of them, and community weekly newspapers or glancing namechecks of a person's existence in an article that isn't about them do not aid passage of GNG but are permissible only for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been satisfied by other sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also believe the Toronto Star which wrote "a good effort from Katherine Barrell as lead character" even though it trashed the film My Ex-Ex. But if I believe in the Toronto Star, maybe that invalidates it as a reliable source for you?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: not about her; it simply namechecks her existence in a blurb whose subject is the film — and that blurb is so short and non-substantive that it wouldn't even be able to carry the film over GNG, let alone its cast members. This is not the first time I have had to explain to you that just because a person's name appears in a reliable source does not automatically cover off the notability issue by itself — e.g. a person's existence being verifiable in a daily newspaper just because she once wrote a letter to the food columnist asking for a kale recipe does not in and of itself demonstrate her notability, as you once tried to argue that it did. Even in the Toronto Star, a piece of coverage has to be substantively about her, not just contain a single mention of her existence in an article about something else, to aid passage of GNG. In point of fact, we literally just within the past couple of weeks deleted an article about one of the other people named in that very blurb as one of her costars in that very film, because coverage substantively enough about him to satisfy GNG was not locatable and that blurb wouldn't have made a whit of difference. There is a big difference between being able to reliably source that a person exists — even I can be "referenced" to reliable sources as existing — and being able to reliably source that they have sufficient notability to belong in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall, all considered, sources are sufficient for GNG, including this in-depth one. Further, according to WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... So, I think you're over a Barrell.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Another thing: yes I know pageview counts are not an official measure, but over the seven years I've been contributing here, it is rare when an article with over 200+ pageviews a day gets deleted. It means there's a huge fan base -- people who will re-float the article if its deleted, like customers annoyed that their type of candy is no longer on the shelf.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mary Sue is yet another blog, still not a reliable or notability-conferring source. Honestly, I have nothing in particular against Katherine Barrell — but the quality and volume of sourcing that it takes for an actress to get a Wikipedia article just is not being shown. You can't just smother this discussion with more blogs. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mary Sue is not a blog but an online geek feminist culture magazine started by ABC TV host and legal affairs expert Dan Abrams, with seven editors; the publication is growing fast. As print media declines, Wikipedia will look to sources like The Mary Sue to a greater extent. In the context of this discussion, it is a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep In spite of the weaker references, the strength of mainstream news coverage combined with New Media puts this one over the top, not by much, but enough. I do not concur that a "single glancing mention of her name in the process of not having her as its subject" discounts the source.   Montanabw (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As Montanabw writes, the sources aren't great, but they aren't negligible. The combination of the Burlington Post article, the Toronto Film Scene article, and the Digital Journal article suffice for me. They are not just name-drops, they are lengthy articles dedicated to the actress. Yes, the first is a local paper, and the second and third are digital only, but they're not just blogs. --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2016 (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.