Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Taylor (actress)


 * 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. Hut 8.5 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Taylor (actress)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Autobiographical article about a nonnotable actress to promote themselves on Wikipedia. User originally replaced disambiguation page with their own article, but it was moved to its current position, where the same user has been, along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. No notable roles and nothing in article asserts any other notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Kelly Taylor (Actress). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Only acting parts are very small bit parts, falls way short of notability for actors. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I speak as an actor, supporting another actor who was a lead in a film in which I myself had only a small supporting role. I never actually met her as we were never in a scene together and we each shot on different days, but I do know of her works.  I say this right up front so other editors may look at the article's history and judge for themselves.  Question my neutrality if you wish, but the truth of this article's edits is there for any to see.  Contrary to the claim that only she and a sockpuppet were editing this particular article (please check the history), the current version sent to Afd was an edit put up by experienced wiki editor user:Hqb.  It was then improved by numerous editors, such as User:Jlittlet, User:Wenli, User:Stemonitis, and User:AndrewHowse among others.  The few small edits done by the 2 editors later blocked as being sockpuppets (in a different disagreement with the nominating editor) met all criteria for article improvement and were entirely within the proper Wiki scope of improving an article... despite the later blocking.  But one can not discount works of the several other editors who had continued to improve the article and who themselves have a long and successful history of improvements to Wiki.  The nominating editor makes no mention of them or their beneficial contributions.  I do.  The current article's version history shows that 1) Miss Taylor has herself made made no edits to it for some 9 months, and 2) User: Hqb, User:Jlittlet, User:Wenli, User:Stemonitis, and User:AndrewHowse all felt the article and actress had enough notability to continue editing.  I ask other editors to carefully examine this article's history, and the history of those editors who have made additions and deletions, to carefully judge the merit and reasons for the additions and deletions, and so decide for themselves if this article might stay. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because other editors cleaned up the article doesn't necessarily mean that they endorse it or its contents. I once created a page on a punk rock band because one of their albums had been listed at AfD (general consensus is that if a band is notable, then so are their albums) -- and personally, I'd rather stick a knife in my ear than listen to punk rock. I'm sure that your comments are in good faith; however, I would suggest you read WP:N first, as it clearly delineates the criteria for notability, which this actress seems to fail. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:MichaelQSchmidt either is, or has employed, to write his own biography article. I wouldn't put too much stock in his response. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps put stock in this: I have no problem supporting any AfD made by this nominator if made in true good faith and for the right reasons. (See Articles for deletion/My Name Is Khan and Articles for deletion/James Evans (actor)). It is conterproductive to include specious arguments simply to attempt to sway support. A claim of non-notability was fine all by itself. Anything else simply clouds the issue (no pun intended). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * L.L.King is a publicist. L.L.King has many clients. I am not L.L.King. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiring a publicist to write an article for you is a violation of WP:MEAT. It is also a (likely) violation of WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV. I would therefore propose that this article (and all others written by King as publicity pieces) be deleted under that critiera. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Living in the real world, actors have publicists. L.L.King was not directed to write an article about me for Wikipedia, nor to my knowledge was he instructed to write about anyone or anything here on Wikipedia. No actor has the time to micro-manage the work of others, and I only became aware of last month's events after receiving numerous emails telling me. Making any claim that King was directed by me to target Wikipedia, is an incorrect allegation. Being in the real world, he was simply doing his job. He was not instructed how or where to do it. That he or his employees decided to edit on Wikipedia was their own choice. That argument has been settled. Coming back to it time after time after time after time is beating a horse long dead. I concur with the nominating editor that King edits be scutinized carefully and that such edits themselves be considered for removal if found untrue, unsupported, or in any way damaging to Wikipedia. I disagree that an entire article about anyone or anything should entirely be removed simply because of inappropriate edits. If removing an entire article simply because of inappropriate edits were to be policy, Wikipedia would be a very empty place. Judge the edits on thir own merits... as certainly, and despite WP:NPOV and WP:COI, if an editor did not have some sort of interest in an article, they would not feel inclined to make it better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article about actress Taylor may indeed fail WP:N. Let that be the determinating factor here. All I ask is that editors review the history and not take the nominator's repeated misdirections as fact. In the nomination, the nominator makes the blatantly incorrect and misleading statement that Kelly Taylor was "along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. The article's history shows many other editors have made significant contributions. The nominator made misleading statements to imply that the article currently in AfD was entirely autobiographical in nature and written by actress Taylor. Article history shows that not only has Taylor ignored this article for over 9 months, it has been quite thourougly re-written by others not associated with Taylor. The nominator has a well demonstrated habit of first de-constructing an article to make it non-notable (as was done in this case), and then nominating the article for deletion for being non-notable. All the nominator need have done was place the original article in Afd as being non-notable and then step back. If the AfD succeeds or fails, fine... there was no need for this continued habit of mis-direction and half truths. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur that the mentioned editor is being misleading in his comments. Additionally, that someone was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet does not mean all of their articles should be deleted. CC knows this is not the same person and it has already been addressed. I have no idea why it needed to be brought up here. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since my name was mentioned above, I would like to clarify for the record that I did not create the original version of this article, nor did I approve of its contents; I merely moved it here from Kellytaylor777's inappropriate edit to the dab page, as mentioned in the AfD nomination. At the time, the article was a straight publicity piece, and I immediately tagged it as such. Later, the worst neutrality violations were cleaned up (by myself and others), but the notability issue remains: at least according to Google, the subject of the article has received virtually no independent coverage in reliable sources, and does not otherwise appear to satisfy the criteria in WP:BIO. Unless someone can address those concerns in the very near future, I can't see any strong reason to keep the article. Hqb (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I misunderstood your part in the article in question. I mentioned you and the others who had improved the article only to refute a blatant allegation that the article was edited only by Kelly Taylor and sockpuppets. I agree that if found non-notable by consensus that the article should be removed, but disagree with de-constructing an article to make it non-notable prior to nominating it as non-notable, or in making false statements in order to sway support.. as both these methods can be themselves interpreted as being self-serving and contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Exclusively small parts. Fails notability criteria, at least for the moment. Rsazevedo msg 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur that this article fails WP:N — BQZip01 —  talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No main roles in any mainstream movies + lack of significant coverage Corpx (talk) 10:32, 30 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.