Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Lintz


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mackenzie Lintz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I deleted this article as an expired PROD a couple months ago and the article's creator has just contested it on my talk page. The reason for the nomination was lack of notability. I've restored it per WP:DEPROD, but I do agree that the subject is not notable. This actress has had only one significant role, and it is relatively straightforward that one significant role in itself does not satisfy WP:NACTOR, which leaves WP:GNG. Looking at the sources out there, the entirety of coverage on her appears to be either passing mentions from sources discussing the works she's been in, or a handful of interviews that are floating around by sources that may or may not be reliable. In my opinion, the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability and has not been since the article's creation in 2013. I welcome the community's input. S warm  ♠  02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article requires better sourcing, and a quick peek at Google News turns up plenty of coverage of Ms. Lintz to make this a more satisfactory article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, maybe you should take more than a "quick peek"? Like I said, there are plenty of sources that mention her while talking about either Under the Dome or Hunger Games, but I personally am not really seeing "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Are you? If so, care to share? The actual coverage of the subject within the search results seems to be pretty minimal and insignificant. S warm   ♠  07:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as creator, I actually waited a while before creating her article because at that point in time, she failed notability but when the series ran for a second season and she became a full cast member (main cast), since then she was in the limelight for the last 30 odd months, not to mention she comes from an acting family and yes, notability is not inherited but she is pretty notable herself..she has gone back to school thus why she has no credits listed since last last year..her article received considerable views (0ver 4600 views) over the last 90 days, even though it was deleted for the last 6 weeks so if people are still checking out her article, it means she is still notable....as mentioned on swarm's page, the nominator was probably someone who did not like her, nothing to do with her notability and for swarm to delete an article without considering that is not very admin-like..-- Stemoc 12:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are incredibly specific as to what would establish notability for this article. After research it appears that the specific requirements--i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources, are not met. Nothing you say above represents a policy-based argument to counter my argument for deletion. Your repeated accusations of bad faith are unfounded, unbecoming, and not remotely appropriate on this project. S warm   ♠  03:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and at best Redirect to Under the Dome because none of this actually better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:CREATIVE is the wrong guide to refute. Go study WP:NACTOR.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I originally said, it appears to me that it is incredibly straightforward that WP:NACTOR is not met. There have not been multiple significant roles. There has only been one. The article itself supports this notion and there is no evidence to the contrary. S warm   ♠  04:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks? for answering for User:SwisterTwister who had stated she failed an inappropriate guideline. Are he under a different account, or can you simply read his mind?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not speaking for Swister in the slightest, just pointing out that your citation of NACTOR is moot because it is clearly not met. S warm   ♠  03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as suitable BLP stub because she is more than a one trick pony and has the multiple roles to meet WP:ENT.. She does get lots of coverage... and yes, like with any actor, most are in relationship to her major roles. If someone wishes to go through the 600+ google news results, there may be enough found about her to expand and more properly source the article.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like she's had the multiple significant roles that would satisfy ENT. It looks like she's had that one role and nothing else remotely significant. Also, I did go through the google news results and I clearly explained my findings in the nomination statement. That is literally why we're here, and rather than answering to the claim I'm making or refuting it, the keep !votes are boiling down to "a google search turns up results, she's probably notable" without actually being able to demonstrate sources that would establish notability. S warm   ♠  03:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite fine that you think she fails WP:ENT. Did you consider her fan base from Under The Dome? Or did you personally review all 600+ news results? Impressive.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No need at all for sarcasm, and it's not really a matter of what I "think". ENT has specific requirements that are not meant. This is a plain and simple fact. I did in fact review the first 20 pages of results and I'm perfectly confident that I'm representing them accurately. Of course she has fans from Under the Dome, but does she have a significantly large fan base or cult following? I see no such evidence of this. You're trying to poke holes in my argument that simply aren't there. Perhaps you could directly refute the policy-based argument for deletion, rather than relying on unsubstantiated assumptions? S warm   ♠  03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ENT because only one role of any significance whatsover. If the article creator (or anybody) thinks she really is notable, the article needs to be filled out to reflect that. Right now it's just a stub about someone with one single role that was more than a bit part. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Alexander Koch (actor) is also same case. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How does this in any way address the specific, policy-based argument for deletion? S warm   ♠  03:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FTR, if this one fails at AfD, I'll be taking that article to AfD next – they are exactly analogous, and if "one big role" isn't enough to pass this one through AfD, then Alexander Koch (actor) should be similarly AfD'ed (and deleted)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do so then! If (!) you are right, "Alexander Koch" should be deleted as well... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Let me look into this one, and get back to it... I suspect she should pass, but I'll need to check sourcing for her this weekend. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see – it's that she's a "one-hit wonder"... For right now, put me down as Delete, and draftify/userfy – one big recent role is likely to lead to a second: a year or two in Draftspace/Userspace will tell the tale... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
 * I've added a little bit more (higher quality - e.g. Variety and THR) sourcing to this one. But it ultimately boils down to whether one believes that "one major role" (and not much else...) passes WP:NACTOR or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per recommendation. WP:NACTOR is very clear on what is required... I can't see multiple performances/roles of note, cult following or major contribution to a field of entertainment -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Currently fails WP:NACTOR, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes going forward. IJBall's suggestion to move to draft space or userfy is a good one. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "Alpharetta 16-year-old Mackenzie Lintz was familiar with Stephen King's 2009 novel 'Under the Dome' because her mom Kelly had read it. And when she tried out for a role on the TV adaptation, she was also psyched when she heard Jack Bender was involved because he was an executive producer and director for 'Lost,' one of her favorite shows of all time. But she didn't think she had a solid chance to win a role, that they'd more likely hire an 18 year old who wouldn't require a tutor on set and could work longer hours.  And her acting credits were modest up to that point: a small role on 'Drop Dead Diva' and a brief appearance on 'The Hunger Games.'  'Under the Dome' picked her anyway. She nabbing the role of Norrie, an unhappy teen daughter of a lesbian couple passing through Chester's Mill just before the Dome trapped them there. This was a major coup for the Covenant Christian Academy senior. Then the show became the first huge network drama hit during the summer in at least a decade, a pleasant surprise for CBS. 'Under the Dome' averaged more than 11 million viewers a week (not counting DVR usage), more viewers than 'America's Got Talent' or 'Duck Dynasty' (though 'Duck Dynasty' was the master among 18-49 year olds.)."  The article notes: "You can add another name to the list of Auburn students with connections to celebrity thanks to incoming freshmen and 'Under the Dome' actress Mackenzie Lintz. Lintz is currently participating in the university's sorority recruitment week after moving to the Plains on Saturday. While the actress may have just moved in, she's no stranger to Auburn. Throughout the last year, Lintz has posted a variety of photos on social media sites expressing her adoration for the loveliest village, including a shot from A-Day and a picture of the national championship game. The 18-year-old actress plays Norrie on the CBS scifi drama 'Under the Dome' in addition to appearing in 2012's 'The Hunger Games' and 'Drop Dead Diva'."  The article notes: "Q: Are Mackenzie Lintz from “Under the Dome” and Madison Lintz of “The Walking Dead” sisters? A: They are, and they are not the only actors in their family. You may also have seen brothers Macsen and Matt. You can find out more about them at www.lintzkids.com." Although this is not significant coverage and I'm not using it to establish notability, I'm listing it here because it can be used to verify information in the article.  The article notes: "Girl-District 8 Played by: Mackenzie Lintz ... Where are they now? In 2013, Lintz was cast as Eleanor 'Norrie' Calvert-Hill in the Steven Spielberg executive-produced CBS series Under the Dome: the show was axed in 2015 after three seasons. She’s also currently studying at Auburn University in Alabama." </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mackenzie Lintz to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Where is this purported "significant coverage"? You yourself admit that the sources you listed don't constitute significant coverage, so why not present a case for the significant coverage rather than list examples of the lack of significant coverage? S warm   ♠  08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From Notability (people), "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Sources 1 and 2 are significant coverage. Sources 3 and 4 are not significant coverage. I think the combination of all four sources amounts to substantial coverage of her per Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources above prove the case for deletion. The first two are just notices about her having minor roles, and are evidence that the role are indeed minor. The third refersto her as having "connections to celebrity". I think that's a good example for what is not notable.  DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As reliable sources have been found, the remaining question is notability; although most of the coverage is for a single role in Under the Dome, there is also coverage in the RS Hollywood Reporter of her role in Hunger Games, so the WP one event rule doesn't seem to apply, also appearing in 39 episodes of a notable production, so I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * She had a lead role for 3 seasons on a MAJOR Broadcasting network (CBS), not to mention a Saturn Award nomination which i just realised i did not add to her article..will add now..award noms are quite notable..-- Stemoc 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeahbut: WP:NACTOR specifically requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She doesn't have that. If she were the lead on a single TV show, that might be enough to except NACTOR, but she was a supporting player on Under the Dome... Like I said, if she takes on another major role in the next couple of years, the article can always be restored. But I think NACTOR basically demands that it be moved to Draftspace for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you are reading that wrong, its not a requirement to have significant roles on TV and Films its TV and/or Films.. The likes of Leonardo di Caprio or Matt Damon didn't have TV roles, are they less notable than George Clooney who has had significant roles on both?..She was a "supporting" actor in season 1 on UtD, but she was one of the main lead in seasons 2 and 3... not to mention a major nomination for her (not for the whole cast) which is notable (we have added articles for people with no nominations). The Hunger games was a major movie (franchise) and she had speaking lines in the first movie so thats "notable films" for you..again, she went back to school thus why nothing after UtD, just because she is not acting now doesn't mean she is no longer notable...-- Stemoc 09:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * She had a bit part in THG. How do I know? Because it wasn't even a named role. IOW, it does not qualify as a "significant" role. So, we're back to her having just one significant role. Ergo, she fails WP:NACTOR. (I will just emphasize again that I think this article should be Userfied/Draftified, rather than outright deleted, in this case, because she may pass NACTOR in a couple of years. But Swarm is correct that she doesn't pass NACTOR now...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "reliable sources" were not missing to begin with, and notability has always been the only issue here, which brings me back to the same point that the coverage that is out there is not "significant" by any remote stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it's all very insignificant and thus it's in contrast to GNG.. Also, to address the above assertion that her role in the Hunger Games constitutes a second significant role, I just don't see how that's rooted in reality. Whether you're looking at the sources that discuss the film and/or her role in it, or whether you just watch the movie personally, that is in no way what one could consider a significant role. It's quite blatantly a minor role and not something that would satisfy what NACTOR is talking about. All that is needed to refute the argument for deletion is proof of significant coverage. For all the keep votes, no one has even been able to present a borderline case to address this. It is really not difficult to demonstrate the existence of notability according to the policy, and the fact that no one is actually able to do so is telling. S warm   ♠  08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have unstricken this vote, which was stricken out by, who wrote "Striking duplicate keep". This is not a duplicate keep. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it is a duplicate keep, the user has already voted on 7 February, second bullet after the proposer, here's the diff. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You struck the vote of . The editor who voted in the diff is . Cunard (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. Permission granted to trout. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - clearly fails WP:NACTOR, and the brief mentions in the media don't rise to the level sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

keep I think people should keep this as a reference. when looking up who someone is after seeing them on TV, wiki is always the first place i go. --Jimhorts (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking invalid !vote as per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources provided do not appear to constitute non-trivial independent coverage. I think we've wrung our hands enough about this one.  If/ When she is the non-trivial subject of published works in reliable independent venues, an article on her will be justified.  That time doesn't look like it's come yet.   KDS 4444  Talk  09:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - IMHO she just about meets NACTOR by being in the Hunger Games & Under the Dome (It isn't amazing but there's some articles here that've been kept on the basis of they've been in 1 notable film), I've found a few sources and a few books  so IMHO she meets GNG (Sorry I would put individual sources here but my laptop as always prefers to be a dick ... bit like me really ... Wait nevermind ). – Davey 2010 Talk 01:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (Davey, it is my understanding that the subject specific guidelines like WP:NACTOR are only meant to give editors a quick tool to assess whether or not a particular subject likely warrants an article, not as a definitive guide for determining notability, which, in the end, must still be met via WP:GNG if brought into question-- yes? KDS 4444  Talk  13:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Actors don't need to meet NACTOR and GNG .... As per WP:GNGACTOR they can meet either, As an aside for the last 3 years I also thought they needed to meet both but I found out 2 weeks ago they can meet either .... IMHO metting both is better but whatever, But yeah they should meet one or the other which in this case I think both are met anyway, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. GNG applies to all articles. sst✈  03:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources and coverage have been properly referenced. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Bruno Mammoth (talk) 09:09, 27 February 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.