Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Tozer


 * 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. Subject satisfies requirements of WP:NACTOR thereby endorsing keep consensus. Philg88 ♦talk 14:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kira Tozer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Article title:
 * Alt spelling:

Non-notable voice actress. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 22.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: The nominator isn't being specific. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to satisfy WP:N. I can probably find a few more sources to add. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - "The nominator isn't being specific" is a pointless comment to make, The second states "I can probably find a few more sources to add" but 7 hours later and still hasn't even bothered adding (or atleast finding!) sources.... Anyway I've searched and found absolutely nothing so fails GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I haven't bothered after 7 hours. Right. Nice way to make it look like I'm a lazy slob. Do you realise that some of us do have lives here? As I've stated on other AfDs, I will NOT add sources till the AfD is closed. If you want add it and go around calling me a lazy fellow who hasn't bothered, go ahead. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that, We all are busy and have lives I get that, If you were able to spend 5 minutes writing your keep !vote - You would've had 5 minutes to do a quick search ...., As for me providing sources - I'll repeat the above - "I've searched and found absolutely nothing so fails GNG".... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did search, that is why I made the statement in the first place. However, I did not have time to do an in depth search because I have had a busy day. Your statement still hasn't bothered adding (or atleast finding) is what I have an issue with. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability for an actress is demonstrated by the presence in the article of reliable source coverage, not by the simple assertion that one "could probably" find more. That's especially true when there aren't any reliable sources in the article to begin with — the article is relying entirely on her own Twitter feed and a blurb on Crunchy Roll, meaning that what we're waiting for here isn't "more reliable source coverage", but rather "any reliable source coverage at all". Delete unless some sourcing improvement actually starts showing up. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The absence of citations in an article does not indicate that the subject is not notable. In order to assuage some of the concerns of the users who have protested against the article, I have located a few additional sources which can be used to improve the quality of citation currently provided:
 * http://news.everfree.net/tag/kira-tozer/
 * http://www.dvdinform.cz/73089-intersonic-nova-vcelka-maja-2/
 * http://www.wevancouver.com/arts/reel-people/nominees-announced-for-2014-ubcp-actra-awards-1.1385194
 * http://www.ubcp.com/awards-submission/
 * http://worldnewsbreakers.com/michael-daingerfield/
 * http://turntherightcorner.com/2014/04/01/now-available-to-own-anchorman-2-47-ronin-knights-of-badassdom-and-more/
 * and an additional source: http://www.mediamikes.com/2013/03/blu-ray-review-inuyasha-the-final-act-set-1-2/ Silver Buizel (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those are acceptably reliable sources that would demonstrate notability — they're all non-notable blogs, not real media with a demonstrable track record of editorial standards. So no, you haven't assuaged anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay... tells us he searched and could not find sources. Fine.   tells his own searches found enough to support his vote. Fine again.    actually brought some forward as a means to support WP:NRVE. And ... S.B. is correct. Topic notability is determined through sources being available, NOT through their being in an article on that topic. And yes, the nominator could certainly have given us a reason beyond his unexplained WP:JNN. However, as WP:BLP tells us that biographies of living persons should be dealt with quickly, carefully, and should depend on high-quality sources.  WP:SOFIXIT, anyone?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, topic notability is demonstrated by the availability of sourcing, rather than by every possible source already having been added to the article. However, nobody has yet demonstrated that even one properly reliable source is actually available — SB's sources are all either primary or user-generated blog sources which don't pass our reliable sourcing rules, and nobody else in this discussion has offered any other sources at all. So my comment is still wholly correct as written and I stand by it until somebody actually ponies up some reliable sources either in the article or here. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... the sheer body of her work can be verified... "Encyclopedia of Television Shows", "The Year in Television", "Television Specials", "TV Guide". We certainly need not do so here, but it seems some editorial staffs outside Wikipedia must feel it worth placing her into the historic records.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Her name being mentioned in directory listings of the TV series she's been in is not substantive coverage of her — it's WP:ROUTINE namecheck coverage in directories that would be expected to contain routine namechecks of her in the cast lists of shows she's been in the casts of. That's not evidence that any "editorial staffs outside Wikipedia" are going out of their way to "place her into the historic records" — it's exactly the sort of routine directory coverage that all actors always get. Our notability requirements on here, however, require substantive coverage in which she's the subject, not just directory listings namechecking her. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah... while meeting WP:GNG is the easiest way to show notability... it's not the only way. Meeting the SNG WP:ENT simply requires that certain attributes be verifiable without it also mandating GNG be met. If meeting the GNG were the only notability guide, we'd have no need for the SNGs to ever exist in the first place.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Subject-specific inclusion guidelines do not constitute an exemption from our standards for quality of sourcing — the only difference between passing those and passing GNG is in how much of it you need to provide to start an article with. For instance, if the claim is that a person passes ENT because they won a major acting award (Oscar, Emmy, CanScreen, etc.), then all you need is one media source which names them as the winner — but it still needs to be a reliable media source, not IMDb or the awarding organization's own PDF list of its winners. But claiming ENT rather than GNG doesn't exempt you from having to source the article at all, and it doesn't exempt you from the standards for what does or doesn't constitute valid reliable sourcing — the only thing you get from it is a reduction in the number of valid reliable sources it takes to start the article with, and even then that reduction is still not to "zero".
 * Further, the problem with ENT #1 (the only point in that list that I can see her even approaching on the basis of what's been written here) is that it's a generic and subjective criterion that casts its net so wide and loose that virtually all actors in existence can and regularly do claim to meet it whether they actually do or not. (I can't even tell you how many times I've seen bit-part actors try to get Wikipedia articles by claiming that they were an ENT-passing "star" of a TV series on which they appeared as an unnamed character in a single scene of a single episode.) So it's not the assertion of passing ENT that gets a person past ENT, it's the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the accuracy of the assertion. She doesn't have to have made the cover of Time or People to qualify for an article on here, but you still need more than the mere presence of her name in a couple of directories. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no claim being made here about awards... that would be WP:ANYBIO, not WP:ENT. It's Apples and Oranges... not a matter of thinking the GNG "over-rules" the SNGs or about thinking the SNGs "over-rule" the GNG. The two are intended to compliment inter-changeably in a common sense consideration of notability. See WP:GNGACTOR.  But if the guideline calling only for verifiability of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" in the lack of SIGCOV can be ignored, then it would seem you're advocating the revocation of all SNGs. If you start the revocation RFC, let's see who agrees. Thank you.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was any claim being made in this article about awards; I gave that as an example of how the difference between passing WP:NACTOR and passing WP:GNG is a question of how many reliable sources you have to provide to start a keepable article, and not an exemption from our standards for the basic reliability of the sources themselves. It only takes one or two reliable sources to start a keepable article about a person who passes a subject-specific inclusion guideline, rather than the dozen or more it takes to pass GNG, but the sources still have to meet the same standard of reliability either way. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples aside, it seems we agree... WP:ENT requires verifiability of career and multiple significant roles... WP:GNG requires quantity of sources speaking toward the person. Meeting WP:NACTOR does not mandate also meeting WP:GNG, but meeting either does require WP:V in WP:RS.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing found to establish notability. Searches find blogs, SPS, and passing coverage only. WP:NACTOR is pretty vague, but we don't have the sources to meet even that nebulous criteria. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. While Tozer hasn't had a huge, overwhelming amount of coverage (, are examples of her coverage), she would still pass notability guidelines per WP:NACTOR. She's had at least two major roles in notable TV series. Sure, they're animated series, but the fact is that they are still major roles in notable series. Kagome is one of the two most major characters in the Inuyasha franchise and while she only voiced the character for The Final Act, that still counts towards notability. Tozer is also one of the main characters in the Littlest Pet Shop TV series, which is also a notable TV show. It's not as infamous as Inuyasha is, but it's still a notable television show. So here we have her performing as two of the main characters in two notable television shows, which would definitely show that she passes notability guidelines. That's just for the two shows that I'm personally familiar with. A look at her other VA credits shows that she was a major character in Hot Wheels Battle Force 5 (54 episodes), Maya the Bee (2012 reboot, 52 episodes), Barbie and the Three Musketeers, and so on. This is one of those very, very rare instances where someone passes notability guidelines without having as oodles of coverage. The problem here is that voice actors very, very rarely gain the amount of coverage that their live action counterparts would and while we're not here to make up the difference, Tozer has had major roles in multiple notable series. It doesn't help that the article only has a portion of her filmography, so I'll try to fix that. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, this is one of those instances where deleting the article would hurt Wikipedia more than help it. This is kind of why I find VA articles so frustrating: if they were a live action actress then odds are that this article would never have gone to AfD in the first place because they'd have had a ton of coverage. What we need to look at is whether or not the shows she's been in are notable or not, then look at how major her role has been in each series. A look at her roles shows that yes, the shows are by large notable and yes, the roles are mostly major- in some cases going over 50 episodes. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep with grateful kudos to for her work so far.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On balance, keep per Tokyogirl79. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2014 (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.