Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen McGuire


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Kristen McGuire

 * – ( View AfD View log  McGuire Stats )

Non-notable actress. Therainbowsend (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources are consistently unreliable and fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 01:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Saw a link to this page (not directly to the RFD) on Faecbook so I'm not voting, but I want to comment that WP:GNGACTOR is an essay, not a policy, however, even that clarifies that subject specific criteria more likely apply here. In this case that would be WP:ENT's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." or WP:ARTIST. The question that may be appropriate then is how many is enough. To me, three = multiple. IMDB Link Kopf1988 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

MissyGraham (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I have updated the page to adhere to Wikipedia's formatting standards and included multiple sources to confirm the information on this page. I used Justin Briner and Sarah Wiedenheft's pages as examples, both which seem to pass Wikipedia's standards. I believe this person to be a notable person, not just for acting, but also for their contribution in script writing and ADR directing, as well as being a published author in the comics and art industry.


 * Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON or Move to draft
 * Assassination Classroom (TV) as Hinano Kurahashi - supporting
 * Castle Town Dandelion (TV) as Karen Ayugase - supporting
 * ēlDLIVE (TV) as Dolugh - main
 * Fuuka (TV) as Chitose Haruna - supporting
 * Keijo!!!!!!!! (TV) as Hanabi Kawai - supporting
 * Mikagura School Suite (TV) as Yuriko - supporting
 * Prison School (TV) as Chiyo Kurihara - main
 * ReLIFE (TV) as An Onoya - main
 * Sky Wizards Academy (TV) as Beach - supporting
 * Yuri!!! on Ice (TV) as Loop - supporting


 * So nothing I see on ANN that shows she has a lead role that carries a program to meet WP:ENT


 * Her anime convention appearances are mostly local to Texas. There are a few that are a litlte further out but just to NerdaCon in Columbus, GA. and one visit to KuroNekoCon in Spokane, WA . She has gotten on to several projects as a ADR Script writer so that might be promising. Can you find some news articles that talk about her and not just a passing mention or cast/convention announcement? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think a real Otaku type would probably know better on whether or not those roles are supporting, but I do recognize Chiyo from Prison School as the main love interest, and I would call that a significant role. Kopf1988 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Dolugh and An Onoya are both listed as "Main" characters on MyAnimeList. [] Anime News Networks even says "Morgan Berry and Kristen McGuire star" in this article. [] I know that animecons.com is not reliably updated and often sports outdated bios and even conventions, as there are several VAs who go to conventions that are not listed. For instance she has also been to Con Alt Delete in Chicago, Tokyo in Tulsa in Oklahoma, and GlitchCon in Arkansas, which are all cons outside of Texas. Hanabi Kawai and Chiyo Kurihara may be listed as "support" characters, but they are both integral characters who act as revolving plot devices in their respective shows. I don't think it's fair to say this actress is not notable just because these characters are not leads. They are significant parts regardless. I also found an article regarding not just her voice acting but also her drawing: [] As well as several pod-cast interviews such as this one: [] She has also posted about being an ADR Director at FUNimation. She is consistently booking larger roles every season. You may feel that she is a not notable actress right now, but she is definitely up and coming. Also upon reviewing the Wikipedia Notability requirements, it says the following:

Entertainers Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

It doesn't actually say anything about having to have a lead role. It just says significant. If a character is in more than half the series, I would say that is significant. IE - Hinano Kurhashi from Assassination Classroom is in practically every episode of a 50+ episode series. Dolugh is in every episode of elDlive and is the driving force behind Chuta's super powers. An Onoya is part of the ReLIFE program and is in charge of making sure the lead stays on track with his program. What exactly does Wikipedia constitute as a significant role? MissyGraham (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Changed Dolugh ēlDLIVE An Onoya / ReLife and Chiyo /  Prison School to main.  Can you write into her biography about these roles and support this with reviews from secondary sources?  That would help show she is getting significant roles.  Also the English dubs should be notable; have any of the titles she is a main in made it onto television networks or services such as Hulu/Netflix or is it all just on the very specialized Funimation broadcast dubs? Arlington library writeup is promising. It's still kind of local but we need more sources that detail her career like that. I suggest the article be developed in Draft as a bare filmography supported halfway with cast announcements and the other half with self-pub / tweets isn't helping anyone for notability. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Otakus would know, but how would the general Wikipedia reader know that if it isn't described? (and please do not bold the roles in the filmography) AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Importantly, none of the discussion about what's considered lead/significant roles matters if there's no significant coverage. WP:NACTOR is one of several more specific criteria that indicate when a subject is probably notable. It's not automatic, because we still need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject on which to base the actual article. We're not imdb, so a list of credits and basic biographical information isn't sufficient for the kind of article we want. In other words, if others find reliable sources independent of the subject that constitute significant coverage, we can say the subject is notable. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment On the note of significant sources, I'd like to point out that there are pages which have not been targeted for deletion which have the same if not fewer sources. I.E. Sarah Wiedenheft. The standards do not seem to be universal. All of Sarah's sources come from the same sources I used, I know because I used Sarah's page as a template for making Kristen's. Upon looking on what counts as a reliable source I found the following from the WP:GNG page: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." If sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, then Funimation's anime (with English cast credits) as well as their cast announcements should count as a sufficient source. Surely if the company who licensed the product and wrote an official blog post announcing the cast, that should be considered reliable? AngusWoof suggests the shows may be more notable if they weren't limited to Funimation's streaming website, however once again I'd like to point out that Sarah's page does not include any shows which have existed outside of DVD or Funimation's streaming site. Also to be noted that most of these shows are or will be available for purchase on DVD. So it's not limited to strictly online viewing. Upon further research I found that the game "88 Heroes", which Kristen provided voices in, is actually a console game which can be purchased on the PS4, which should help the notability factor that AngusWoof has requested. I will edit the page and make the changes you requested, but I would like to point out that it seems like the requirements change from voice actor to voice actor, which can be rather confusing. MissyGraham (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're expressing is a common and valid frustration (common enough that there's a term for it, albeit somewhat dismissive: an "other stuff exists" argument). It basically comes down to Wikipedia being a volunteer-run project. Ultimately, a volunteer familiar with the guidelines needs to come across the page and apply the policy/guideline in order for it to be applied. If you've come across another article that doesn't meet notability criteria, you could tag it for deletion yourself, or eventually (possibly years later) someone else will (or perhaps by then the subject will be notable). The standards are universal, but there aren't enough volunteers to apply them with perfect consistency. FWIW I've not looked at the other article at this point. If sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, then Funimation's anime (with English cast credits) - This conflicts with another part of the same page which explains that the sources should be independent of the subject. Primary sources can be used for some purposes (list to verify that a person was in a certain movie), but doesn't contribute to notability because notability is based on what people who have nothing to do with the subject say about her. (As an aside, for most purposes other than verifying basic data, secondary sources are preferred. We want to know what a professional critic thinks about a movie, for example, more than we want to know what the movie studio says about its own movie.) In other words, they need to be reliable and independent of the subject. Sorry this is so confusing -- the deletion process on Wikipedia can be messy. When it comes down to it, the best thing to do is just to link to books, articles, magazines, journals, newspapers, etc. in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide something like "significant coverage". People who opine here will, ideally, look for sources themselves and evaluate what's already linked here before making a decision. When the discussion is closed, the closing editor (typically an administrator) will evaluate the merits of the policy-based arguments to determine consensus on what to do. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:42, 16 April 2017 (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.