Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Niemi


 * 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The result was   keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Niemi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An actress who seems to be notable only for being Patrick Swayze's wife. Searches for reliable-source mentions of her outside the context of her husband seem to turn up little or nothing; and notability is not inherited. There's no worthwhile, merge-worthy content in this article that isn't already mentioned in the "Personal life" section of Swayze's; though several efforts to simply redirect this article have been reverted. This seems a classic example of an unsourced WP:BLP of highly marginal notability that we shouldn't leave lying around. ~ mazca  talk 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - since the article has been expanded substantially by I have switched to keep, see below. ~  mazca  talk 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a bit sad that people apparently would value articles so little as to split off substubs like this. This is not to argue against splitt-off articles, but why do it before you have a half-decent stub, with one or two sources other than IMDb? 84.44.140.9 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Patrick Swayze per 84.44.140.9; see this discussion. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Patrick Swayze. Best to direct readers to where the information they're looking for is available. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Ok, she doesn't have the most impressive resume out there, but it's not non-notable. 23 episodes as a principal character in a TV series, Super Force should get her past WP:ENT alone. Co-star in Steel Dawn, writer and director of One Last Dance and choreographer for Urban Cowboy. How can she we say she is only notable for being married to Swayze? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If she's notable, sources shouldn't be difficult to find. I think this is more about organizing content than determining notability. Please consider that the AfD was only started after attempts (including my own) to simply redirect. I for one would prefer a redirect for the time being because Lisa Niemi is currently not even a proper stub. In other words: There is nothing much to be kept or deleted in the first place. 84.44.253.167 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about these sources? Entertainment Weekly hated the show, but confirms her as a co-star of Super Force. . The show is notable enough for its own article. The NY Times also shows her as the co-star, billing her ahead of Patrick Macnee. . The NYT also shows her as the co-star of Steel Dawn (another movie notable enough for its own article). and as the Director, writer and co-star of One Last Dance (yet another movie notable enough for its own article). . They also confirm she directed a 1990 movie called Dance.  A&E confirms that she directed Episode 10 of The Beast. Like I said, she doesn't have the resume of a mega-star, but she sure passes notability. Most of the more in depth coverage is from sites that won't pass WP:RS, but we can prove with RS's, that she has done things that pass notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All of your links are simple cast&crew listings. Not one sentence is actually written about her, and you could hardly use those to significantly expand the article with verifiable info. Even if the series is notable (no opinion on that as of right now), it does not mean that all starring cast members are automatically notable as well. Btw, I had googled her name, too, and didn't change my mind precisely because none of the links I found were of greater depth than yours. Sorry, I still believe that (a) she's not notable and (b) on the basis of the "sources" found so far, no stub can be written. This is not deletionism vs. inclusionism, it's about organizing content in a plausible and useful way. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what the sources are. It might surprise you to know that I actually READ them before posting them. The criteria of WP:ENT are clear. She has had significant roles in multiple movies and TV shows. We can prove that with reliable sources. On that basis alone, she passes WP:ENT. Just because you don't find critiques of her performances or in-depth articles about her life doesn't negate the fact that she had multiple roles in notable movies and shows and that we can prove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not simply find no critiques or articles about her work or life, I found virtually nothing usable, despite consulting Google. Then again, I'm not the best RS sleuth. At any rate, don't let me hold you back. Just put a few sources into the stub, I'll even help scan them for material and help get a stub going. As of right however, this and IMDb are the only things in the page even resembling sources. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I already gave reliable sources, so saying there is a lack of them is simply incorrect. Further, where did you get the notion that sources had to be critiques or in depth coverage of her life? WP:ENT simply says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". She has had those roles. They can be verified through reliable sources, which I've already posted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep though married to a significant/notable star; she herself is significant and has had her own series and follows the guidelines of WP:BIO and WP:Entertainment. What makes her article weak is lack of material and resource but in the short moments I looked, there was plenty of information available from reliable sources. She did have a major dance career as well but due to the fact a lot of articles written on her were in the 80s and are difficult to source online now. BioDetective2508 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009
 * Um, in the short moments I looked, there was plenty of information available from reliable sources. So were there reliable sources online, or did you quickly find some offline? At any rate, we need solid citations. 87.79.139.215 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided online sources above........unless the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly aren't reliable enough for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that they are not reliable, of course. But none of the entries contain much prose, let alone anything mentioning Lisa Niemi so much as in passing. She's only listed as a cast member. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To which I responded here. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you please answer my basic question: Where did you read that verifiable sources required "much prose"? The standard is that she appeared in notable movies and TV shows. That can be proven as FACT. Why is there a demand that you need to read someones critique of it to be notable? You are demanding something that the criteria does not require. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BIO says: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The footnote attached to that explains: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I've read the criteria before. I am not looking at general notability criteria, but the specific ones for WP:ENT. These specific standards are in place for a reason. For example, WP:PROF sets standards for academics. One of the measures is how many times their works have been cited. It doesn't differentiate between a one line citation and a 3 paragraph citation, just the number of them. WP:ENT doesn't say that they have to have in depth coverage of their roles or performance, but that they had significant roles. She did. In any case, I've expanded the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does she meet any of the notability prerequisites ENT sets out? Has she had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions, does she have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? If she meets any of those, I honestly don't see it. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not stated an unequivocal opinion before. In the light of Niteshift36's expansion the former issue that it was a substub is resolved, since it is certainly a suitable stub, at least content- and formatting-wise. However, I'm still not sure whether even with the new material the article couldn't and shouldn't rather be merged to Patrick Swayze, who undeniably adds a considerable portion to her notability. Therefore, I abstain from any judgement pending further developments. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course he adds to her notability. I've never said otherwise. But he is not the sole source of it. That has been my point all along. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he adds a considerable portion to her notability, that is part of my point. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Her co-starring role in Super Force alone, which Swayze wasn't connected to, gets her past WP:ENT. I say delete far, far more times than I say keep or merge. In this case, I think delete is totally wrong and that merge diminishing her achievements. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "diminishing her achievements" -- As you probably know, that is as irrelevant and also untrue as it would be to say that we "honor" anyone's "achievements" by having an article about them. That may be true for the individual editor who is committed to writing about a favourite actor or some such, but not for Wikipedia as a whole. I agree that outright deletion is not an option, it's really between merging into Patrick Swayze or keeping the material in its own page. ENT talks about significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. I don't agree that her participation in Super Force and the other work she has done establishes her notability, certainly not in a confident way. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are to focused on my wording and totally ignoring the point. She has multiple notable roles. Steel Dawn, Super Force, One Last Dance and The Beast all have their own articles. She co-starred in, directed or wrote all 4. I think 4 qualifies as multiple. I think writing, directing and co-starring qualify as significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel I focused on your wording, I was really aiming at responding to your point. I focused on the quoted portion because I felt you were (inadvertently) creating sort of a strawman with the other part: Although this is an AfD discussion, nobody save for the nom has pleaded for outright deletion rather than merging into Patrick Swayze, and even he did on the basis that there isn't anything of significance that isn't in the parent article already. At any rate, her body of work does not imho raise her above the notability threshold in a way that would make me say keep. Steel Dawn is little more than a stub itself, with little to no real sources. Same for Super Force and One Last Dance (2003 film). That she directed one episode of a cancelled series that never made it past season one isn't that impressive either. Just stating my perception, and most news outlets appear to agree with me in that they didn't report a lot about those. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the ENT threshold. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be fair about it, The Beast was cancelled because the star (her husband) has terminal cancer, not because of ratings. The show itself was successful in the ratings and received critical acclaim. As for the others being stubs, yes, they are....so far. The fact that nobody has taken it on themselves to expand them doesn't dimish their notability. Actually, I found probably 8-10 sources about the movie One Last Dance while looking for something else. Steel Dawn is simply old and most of the press coverage of the film just aren't online. Maybe if I decide to expand that article, I'll have to rely more on off-line sources. Same with Super Force...successful enough to get renewed, but still in 1990-91, so not a lot of the coverage is available. Of course I could try sneaking in the ton of sites that do talk about them all, but I am limiting it to reliable sources that can't be challenged. No intention of trying to do an end run and hope nobody notices. I would also note that the nominator has changed his opinion to keeping the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed Mazca's change of mind. As I've laid out, I think that the material currently in her article could still easily be merged into Patrick Swayze. Since we're now essentially negotiating our respective interpretations of the inclusion guidelines set forth by ENT, I hope it's not a problem that I am not voting keep. For me, significant roles in multiple movies and TV shows simply refers to something different than her body of work. But FWIW your great improvements to the page have certainly "saved" the article from being submerged, and it really does look a lot better now than it did at the start of this AfD. [Hint: By bolding the word keep in the post above yours, I intended to depart from the discussion by hinting, in a subtly unsubtle way, at my "basic ok". In other words: I can live with that article and won't stubbornly insist on redirecting when I see that a majority of other people now deems the article appropriate.] 78.34.201.60 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (as nominator); I'm pleasantly surprised as to how well this article's been expanded. Normally an article makes grandiose claims to notability but cannot be backed up by sources; whereas in this case prior to the AfD nobody had bothered to include any reason she was notable. The article has gone from doing little more than noting she's Patrick Swayze's wife, to detailing a reasonable career in some fairly obscure but clearly notable productions. The article has therefore, in my view, gone well beyond what would reasonably be included in a merged section, and is acceptably sourced. I'm not withdrawing the AfD as there are clearly good-faith arguments to merge; but I retract my own argument to that effect. Nicely done. ~ mazca  talk 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Mazca, I appreciate that very much. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Her details must be retained and expanded upon if possible. She is the last and closest confidante of Patrick Swayze, a man likely soon to depart this Earth. Her personality and appeal is exceptionally unique. You see her capturing Mr Swayze's heart in 1975 when they were both young and she has held his heart for 20+years. This is quite exceptional for a Hollywood megastar. What brought this about? Only by retaining her details and expanding it can we ever hope to remember the special quality that is Lisa Niemi and Patrick her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2009 (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.