Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Gilchrist


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lara Gilchrist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not shown by way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1968493/ Gregkaye (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IMDb does not count toward notability. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article passes WP:ENTERTAINER as the person has had significant roles in various notable television shows.  D r e a m Focus  17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter how many "notable" roles a person has had — in actual fact all of the roles listed here seem to be minor or supporting roles, not notable ones, but I digress — the mere assertion of notable roles does not get a person past WP:ENTERTAINER by itself. Rather, a person does not qualify as notable until you can cite reliable media sources (which the existence of a profile on IMDb is not) to demonstrate that they've garnered substantial media coverage for those roles. It's not the fact of being able to list a bunch of television or film roles that gets her over the notability bar; it's the quality of sourcing you can add to support the assertions. And furthermore, no WP:BLP is ever allowed to keep an unsourced article for any length of time — so no, you're not allowed to just demand that the nominator develop some "patience". Either you source it properly now or it goes — there are no options in between those two when it pertains to a living person. Delete if the article is not adequately sourced by closure. Keep per Rob's sourcing improvements — but as I previously noted, it's not the mere assertion of passing a notability guideline that gets her past the inclusion gates, but the sourcing that can be provided to support the assertion. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Invisible Woman in not a minor roll in Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes. There are four of them, she one of them.  And as long as you don't say anything that might possibly offend/slander anyone, you don't need references to pass BLP.  There is nothing listed about the person.  Its just a list of their notable work.   D r e a m Focus  22:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need references to pass WP:BLP. Potentially controversial content is especially critical to reference properly, but a BLP is never entitled to keep an unsourced article at all under any circumstances. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It says " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."  Do you see anything that is likely to be challenged there?   D r e a m Focus  22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter a whit whether there's anything controversial in the current iteration of the article or not. If the article is not adequately referenced, then she doesn't even pass our notability cutoff for actors regardless of how many unsourced film or television roles you list — because the referencing, not the assertion itself, is the thing that even gets her past our notability rules for actors in the first place. So the fact that the article isn't strictly violating BLP's provision against controversial content is irrelevant, because until you add proper reliable source coverage which demonstrates that she has actually been the subject of substantial coverage, she doesn't even pass the basic notability rules which would allow her to even have a BLP at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." It doesn't need the GNG if it passes a subject specific guideline such as WP:ENTERTAINER which it does.  WP:V can be met by her name listed in the credits of the works she has done.   D r e a m Focus  22:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Every single subject-specific notability criterion still specifies that the use of referencing, which properly demonstrates that the person has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, is still a mandatory and non-negotiable part of even passing that subject-specific guideline at all. GNG is not the only notability guideline that requires actual referencing — they all do, subject-specific or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you link me to an actual policy or guideline page that says that?  You only need coverage of them for the GNG, not for the WP:ENT.   D r e a m Focus  22:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT is a subsection of Notability (people), not a standalone document — so kindly read the "basic criteria" section of that document (as well as the part where it explicitly says that successfully meeting one or more criteria in a subject-specific checklist does not guarantee that an article topic will be kept, if the article does not cite proper references to support their meeting of the criteria) if you think referencing is optional as long as a person nominally meets one item in their subject-specific checklist. Proper referencing is always mandatory in a BLP, regardless of which inclusion guideline you're trying to pass. Yes, you do need proper referencing to pass ENT. You do need proper referencing to pass POLITICIAN, or AUTHOR, or ECONOMIST, or CRIME, or PORNBIO, or even ANYBIO — no matter what inclusion guideline you're citing, you still need proper referencing to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)It says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." None of that would exist if the GNG had to be met for everything. And nowhere in the BLP guideline page does it say you need to have reference for everything, just things that are likely to be challenged.  D r e a m Focus  23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * People frequently create BLPs which deliberately lie about meeting one or more Wikipedia inclusion standards (e.g. the winning of awards that don't actually exist, or aren't notable enough to make their winners notable; "hit" singles or "bestselling" books that were never actually hits or bestsellers anywhere verifiable; etc.), so the meeting of any given inclusion guideline is always conditional on the quality of reliable source referencing you can provide to support the assertion in question — no matter what criterion you claim the subject meets, they do not meet it if the assertion that they meet it is not referenced. Referencing to reliable sources is always mandatory in a BLP, regardless of what notability criterion you're trying to pass, and no amount of arguing about it going to change that fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No such claims are made here. All it says is "Lara Gilchrist is a Canadian stage, screen and voice actress."  Oh no!  We don't have any proof she is Canadian, her official website just list two Canadian addresses for her agents.  Should we change it to simply say she is a screen and voice actress?  Would you need a reference for that, or is it common sense based on her credits appearing for acting and voice acting jobs in various television shows?   D r e a m Focus  23:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do still need a proper reference for the "fact" that she's Canadian. Every BLP must always cite proper reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article — the presence of reliable source coverage being the definition of what notability is. It does not matter what notability guideline you're trying to get the subject past; proper referencing is always still mandatory in a BLP. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed any mention of being Canadian from the article. There is no other bit of information that needs to be referenced.   D r e a m Focus  23:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The basic question of whether she's even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place still needs to be answered by the use of reliable source referencing. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct that we must have a reliable source to show she meets a notability criterion and imdb is not such a source (which is what justified the nomination). Where I disagree is your initial assertion that it requires "substantial media coverage for those roles".  If there is RS-coverage of major roles, than it's no longer necessary to show "substantial media coverage".     --Rob (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion at WT:Notability (people) is covering much of Bearcat's complaint and Dream Focus's defense. I think Dream Focus is saying that the end credits of the animated programs that Gilchrist has voiced are enough support for this biography to be notable, which represents one side of the debate about having voice actors specifically included in the WP:ENTERTAINER guideline. I don't agree; I think the ENT guideline was written for actors and entertainers that are recognizable by face, not puppeteers or foley artists or body doubles or stunt doubles or voice actors. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I say "substantive coverage" I don't mean a minimum of forty ref tags and a book about her — but we do need more than the mere inclusion of her name in a directory of "all people who've ever had any sort of film or television credit". We're not actually in any substantive disagreement here; you're just assuming that my use of the word "substantive" was implying a heavier volume of sourcing than I actually intended it to. One or two non-directory sources which properly confirmed that she passed ENT would have been enough to flip my !vote, and you've already added more than enough that I've already done so. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added the first of several offline stories I found about her, so she meets WP:GNG. --Rob (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that this source has been added, one that mentions Gilchrist one time in passing, for her major role in a very tiny production. Then there's the March 2007 Vancouver Courier article, "Invisible woman gives geeky teenagers, German lesbians a voice", which cannot be found anywhere online nor in the archives of the Vancouver Courier. I looked for parts of the article's title, parts of the quoted section, only to find nothing at all to verify the article. Such a complete failure of verification is very rare of newspaper articles published in 2007. Then there's the major role in a very tiny play called "Hippies and Bolsheviks". So it looks like Gilchrist is a working voice actress, with no significant roles, who also does stage plays in small productions. I don't think this stuff rises to the point of notability for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have an account on ProQuest, you can visit http://search.proquest.com/docview/359443166 which will only work if you are logged in. If somebody emails me their email address through Wikipedia, I can use ProQuest to directly send them a copy of any article I added.  I obviously can't copy/paste the whole article here for copyright reasons.  I've already included a quote in the citation.  If there's any information missing from the citation that would help in finding it, please let me.  --Rob (talk) 00:16, 28 June 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.