Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luisa D'Oliveira


 * 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 no consensus (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Luisa D'Oliveira

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an actress, with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE WP:NACTOR as virtually all of her listed roles were supporting or guest characters. This is written with a marked advertorial skew (there's more text here about her working as a waitress and bartender -- which what actor hasn't? -- before getting into acting than there is about her actual acting), and is sourced entirely to IMDb and a Q&A-style interview on The Huffington Post -- but while an interview would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had already been covered off, it fails to bring any GNG in its own right. So nothing here makes her an actress who's qualified for a Wikipedia article yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be written and sourced more substantively than this. Bearcat (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She has a scattering of interviews, but mostly at obscure sites. Other than that, there's this minor CBC item. Not enough for WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. She meets the stated critera of having "had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows." Press coverage shows her roles were significant as her name frequently appears in reviews and entertainment news articles in publications like Hollywood Reporter and Entertainment Monthly. She is quoted in news articles in the Toronto Star and Vancouver Sun as well as the HuffPo interview; these are evidence of her notability, not just something to be considered after she's had the leading role in a blockbuster. Having a leading role is not a prerequisite for notability. Wiki has many articles about actors whose notability stemmed from them playing many supporting or guest roles over a long period of time and becoming known to the public as a character actor or supporting actor. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)  P.S.  Editing to add, The criteria at WP:CREATIVE is not the right one for actors; the appropriate criteria is WP:ENTERTAINER which explicitly lists that it applies to "actors". TheBlinkster (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Quoted in news articles" does not get a person over any Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself — a person has to be the subject of an article about them, not a soundbite provider in an article about something else, for that article to count for anything toward WP:GNG. And Q&A interviews do not count toward GNG either — they represent the subject talking about herself, and so suffer from the same problems as any self-published PR or EPK sources: they're not neutral, and may contain inaccurate or self-aggrandizing or non-factchecked claims. So they're acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of biographical claims after GNG has already been met, but count for zero toward the meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She is the subject of the HuffPo interview. Furthermore, having had multiple significant roles, she meets the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER in my opinion. Your argument for deletion seems to have been based on her not meeting the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, which is different, and is not appropriate for actors. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly typed the wrong shortcut, so sue me — but passing WP:ENTERTAINER is still dependent on the quality and volume of sourcing that you can provide to support the claim to passing ENTERTAINER. No notability claim can ever be passed just by asserting that it's passed, if it's not properly sourced as passed — everything I said about the article is still entirely true, and the argument is not voided just because I accidentally typed CREATIVE instead of NACTOR, because the volume and quality of sourcing is still the be-all and end-all of an article's ability to pass NACTOR too. And I didn't say that she failed to be the subject of the Huffington Post interview — I said that she's talking about herself in the Huffington Post interview. There's a longstanding consensus that precisely because they represent the topic talking about herself, and are thus subject to the same problems as a press release or any other non-neutral public relations source, Q&A-style interviews cannot help to carry a person over a notability criterion. Interviews may be used only for supplementary confirmation of biographical facts after a notability criterion has already been met on the basis of better sourcing than the interview alone — and that's not some tendentious personal rule that I made up myself, but the real standard rules of how GNG really works. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that the woman has had significant roles in a number of TV series and some films, thus establishing her notability as an actress. No sign of this letting up either. If she was just somebody who had one or two parts and then we never heard from her again it would be different, but taking all the available source material as a whole, she appears to have established notability as an actress, especially in Canada. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is, where is all this "available source material as a whole" that properly establishes her notability? It's not on Google News, where the only source that's even slightly about her is the Huffington Post interview that's already footnoting this article, and which cannot confer notability in and of itself for the reasons I've already explained — and it's not in ProQuest, where her name garners just 14 hits of which every last one is a passing namecheck of her existence and none of them is about her. It's not enough to just assert that she passes NACTOR because she's had roles, because every actor in existence has had roles (it's part of the job description) — and it's not enough to just assert that coverage exists if you can't show where it exists. An NACTOR pass is dependent on the quality of the sourcing you can provide to demonstrate an NACTOR pass, not the mere assertion of an NACTOR pass, and you still have yet to show any evidence that the necessary quality of sourcing is actually out there — I've looked for it and I'm not finding any, so what special secret alternative place are you looking where better sourcing exists? Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2016 (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.