Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot Rose


 * 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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Margot Rose

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not clear how this might meet WP:BIO, none of the Google news hits appear to be about this actress. Article lacks references. Withdrawn, thanks to DES for the New York Times and Variety references RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it troubling that this has been nominated for deletion. Margot Rose the actress, the subject of this article, has been in dozens of mainstream, popular, and successful movies and television programs and has had steady work for two decades. She is, in fact, notable. From Notability (people):

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
 * Do you contend that she is in fact not sufficiently notable? Then how many movies and TV shows does it take to be "notable" in your opinion? Or perhaps you don't challenge this article based on her lack of notability, but rather on the lack of citations to supporting information. If the latter, then this is not grounds for deletion of the article. Disambigutron (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The roles are not significant enough to meet these guidelines. All articles require references, especially biographies, this has none. RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response I created this article and this will be my only comment in this discussion. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and did go to your talk page with an earlier response, RadioFan, I apologize if that was not the correct area to comment previously.  I have since added Margot's IMDB page as the reference for this page, a site that was given as an example of a reliable reference source.  I hope that addresses your concerns as to references.  As for her notability, I know that I have seen MANY other pages for actors and actresses that have far less credits to their body of work.  No, she is not a headliner, but that should not diminish the notability of her supporting roles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinsdude (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Radiofan, I think you need to brush up on Notability (people). Please pardon the redundancy but I feel it necessary to quote from that source once again: "3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I must also point out (once again) that a lack of PROOF of notability is entirely different from a lack of notability itself. Do you really think that Margot Rose is in fact not notable enough for inclusion? Then let me ask this question again - how many movies and TV shows does it take? How many years of contribution to a given field of entertainment? If you have insufficient experience with Wikipedia to be able to judge which entertainers should or should not be included, I suggest taking the time to find out whether actors/actresses of similar caliber are commonly included. While not definitive, you can use this as a benchmark.Disambigutron (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment And the lack of proof of notability is the issue here. References aren't optional.  This requirement of verifiable evidence is one of the few requirements. You find her career prolific, but I dont and some others may not as well.  If in the end the concensus is that she is notable and sufficient 3rd party sources can be found, then by all means the article should be kept. The best way to ensure this article is kept is to locate significant coverage of this person in verifiable reliable sources and improve the article with that information. --RadioFan (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * References aren't optional is an essay, one I reject, not a policy or guideline. What policy says is that references are required for factual information that had been challenged in good faith, and for any negative or contentious information about a living person. No one has seriously challenged, as far as I know, the accuracy of the list of credits here, so references proving that she actually played these roles would be redundant. DES (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it that RadioFan's argument is that even assuming the list of credits to be 100% accurate, that it does not establish notability without cited critical commentary. That is a plausible position to take, but I don't think it accords with WP:BIO and WP:ENT, nor with the general consensus on notability for performers. If RadioFan's argument is that the lack of cited sources for unchallanged, uncontentious facts is a reason to delete, then he is not in accord with current policy and his argument should be dismissed by the closer as not policy based. If his argument is that the number of roles does not count as "prolific", that is a judgment call. I disagree. DES (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern here is two fold, this actress does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ENT (no large fanbase, no unique or prolific contribution) because I dont see a career of minor roles as being "significant". Failing that notability needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in 3rd party sources.  As mentioned elsewhere, the quotes on her official web page are interesting, perhaps something to go on, but they are not reliable and some of them appear to be embelishments at best and fabrications at worst.  The Variety references that DESiegel mentions are a very good start to demonstrating this actress as being notable.  The biography there is no help, it's not every complete.  Most of the others only mention her as being in the cast but there is enough there to demonstrate significant coverage therefor I am withdrawing the nomination with the assumption that someone will add these references where appropriate.--RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. All I see is minor roles in some major films plus mostly one-off appearances on TV shows. (She was in one Starman TV episode, not the more notable movie.) Also, IMDb is not considered a WP:Reliable source, so it should go under the section External links. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As per Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb, and my own opinion, I think the IMDB should be considered a reliable source for titles, release dates, cast lists, and crew lists on released films. This information on the IMDB generally comes directly from the studios or the actual onscreen credits. A random user cannot simply log on and change or add to any of this information. DES (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually DES, the cast & crew information about released films is just about the only thing at IMDB that is generally accepted, though as an EL and not a citation... and this because the information in those sections can be so easily verified by the film itself. It's because IMDB as a whole is not considered reliable, that the reliable portion is not usable as a source for notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, actually actually, the only IMDB data that is commonly accepted as reliable is writer info because it comes directly from a reliable source. The rest is contributed by individuals, just like Wikipedia, though there is a review process which does filter the obvious junk, but the rest of IMDB does not get an automatic pass as being reliable.--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Writer or not, IMDB is still not allowable as a citation, and as I explained above, even generally reliable portions of IMDB are not used as a source because of the overall Wikipedian perception of the website. And although yes, information may be submitted by non-experts, IMDB does have a vetting process for information on cast & crew, and such is usually submitted by production itself or included because of screenshots of onscreen film credits, and they will correct errors if discovered. However, and please, I do not wish to rehash arguments about IMDB as a source, because it is not being used as one here. My point was only that cast/crew information that can be otherwise sourced to the film itself need not require additional verification. So we're left with the question as to whether or not her body of work meets WP:ENT. I and others here believe it does. Further expansion and continued expansion is a reason to improve the article through normal editing... a surmountable issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per 30-year career in film and television adequately meeting WP:ENT . Yes, the article could use cleanup, expansion and further sourcing, but surmountable issues are no reason to delete.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per MichaelQSchmidt length of career and number of credits are IMO quite enough to establish notability. Articel can surely be improved, but should not be deleted. DES (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added several references. Many more are behind paywalls, and i cannot verify that they support the article without subscriptions or doing significant library research. But no one seems to actually challenge the IMDB flimography for this actor. What is debated is its significance. DES (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's some diging to do. Her official website lists several decent reviews of her work . Enough clues are given so that a deeper search should be successful... specially for the Variety and Dramalogue reviews.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While those are excellent clues that could lead to finding reliable sources, the above links themselves are still primary sources. The references have to be verifiable, and these aren't at the moment, these are simply pull quotes with publication names, something that entertainers are known to pull out of context and/or embellish.  These quotes might be from complete articles focused on this actress (which would definately help establish notability) but they might be single sentences mentioning her in a larger article focused elsewhere (which does little to establish notability). Digging a bit deeper into these quotes, there are some concerns about the verifiability of these claims:
 * *The Jupiter News Journal : Sounds like a newspaper but the only Google hits I get on the title bring up this actress's web page. Not something you'd expect from a reliable source.
 * *The Los Angeles Dispatch : Also sounds like a newspaper, but all references I see to this title talk about the Los Angles Fire Department. Perhaps its a very small, no longer in print newspaper, perhaps its a newsletter produced by some theater group, perhaps it (like the Jupiter News Journal) was made up to go along with a made up quote.  Who knows if we cant verify it.
 * *Cue Magazine : Sounds like an entertainment or theatrical magazine but the only concrete example I've found of it is a newsletter from a company which makes DJ equipment. there was something by that name which was bought by New York magazine at some point but I'm having trouble finding their archives.
 * *Dramalogue : Does she mean the newspaper "Drama-logue"? Mispelling the title of a publication in your resume not once by four times doesn't create much confidence here.  In any case, more specifics (such as date and page numbers) for this quote are needed
 * *Variety : Certainly a reliable source but needs references to specific articles, this is probably the most easy to verify.

--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick google search of "Margot Rose" at www.nytimes.com revealed 25 hits - 35 if omitted results are included. It appears that all of them (except for one paid death notice) refer to the "Margot Rose" at the center of this debate and not some other "Margot Rose". Here are a few: http://movies.nytimes.com/person/151174/Margot-Rose http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=980DE7D71038F93BA35751C1A964948260 http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/08/movies/nick-nolte-and-eddie-murphy-in-48-hours.html?&pagewanted=all http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/174234/A-Civil-Action/cast
 * According to http://books.google.com/books?id=fRUrF2PqR1IC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22The+Los+Angeles+Dispatch%22+-fire+-system&source=bl&ots=ctaFlHXGZZ&sig=ZkOdEY6hIFaasss1YHCQfyswal8&hl=en&ei=CmV7S__IMcLT8QbWwZTUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Los%20Angeles%20Dispatch%22%20-fire%20-system&f=false the Los Angeles Dispatch is (or was) a black newspaper. Just do a google search with "-fire -system" included. It apparently does not have online archives. DES (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * this NY times article says "Cue was for hundreds of thousands of active, affluent New Yorkers the bible of where to go and what to do in the arts and entertainment until it was acquired by Rupert Murdoch and merged with New York magazine in 1977. Many maintain that no publication since Cue has provided as complete and reliable a consumer guide to the cultural life of New York City." obviously a RS for the entertainment field, I find no online archives. [[User:DESiegel|DES] (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So at what point can we move on and stop wasting time with this?Disambigutron (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These links mention her only in a cast list or list movies or TV shows shes credited in. These references do not address the subject directly in detail as required by general notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to see why the vast majority of your delete nominations are rejected. You don't understand the basics. Surely you do not suggest that there has been some vast conspiracy to get someone named Margot Rose included in all these cast lists. Your problem with the IMDB reference was that anyone can submit cast information. Explain how I could get myself listed in the cast of The Godfather, please. It would really impress my friends. I've provided another source - the New York Times no less - to support the information in IMDB. If you took 120 seconds (double the amount of time you spend checking out most articles) you'd find that dozens of celebrity and movie sites include her in the casts of those same movies and shows. Has Margot Rose duped them all? Perhaps she has even managed to sneak her name into the credits at the end of each movie? Heck, if she has managed to pull off such a grand feat of deception, she DEFINITELY deserves her own wiki article for that reason alone. Disambigutron (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A long career in many notable series. I saw her in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, she a main character, playing Picard's wife, and getting plenty of screen time in the hour long episode.  She isn't just some minor background character who does a bit part, saying one line, and that it.  These are significant roles in many notable works.   D r e a m Focus  00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The internal search at the online site of Variety lists 29 pages about Margot Rose, of which 5 are reviews, and most of the others appear to be series or production information pages including cast lists. However, Variety currently permits free access to only two online articles per month for any one user. I have added two review articles as refs, someone else has added a third. I have also added her general list of roles from that site to help verify the specific roles she has appeared in. DES (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi DES. It was Dream Focus and me who were tweaking the article... and I set some refs for the filmography section itself as a whole, as refs for each individual film and TV appearance was looking a bit unweildy... and are not in contention. She's had a busy career. I've also found she has coverage as a thespian and dramaturgist through an expanded search for her theater work . Just takes looking.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have kept individual citations. If the cites are to be there at all, they should be useful, and it is significantly harder to see what each one does and does not support in a group like that. If any of them supported all of the roles it might reasonably go up top, but otherwise I think not. However I won't revert over the matter. Thanks for the added refs. DES (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much do understand... but since her career and projects are not (now) in doubt, and specially as her film and TV are understood as citable to the work itself, it is overkill to feel you have to individually cite every last one.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Her official website list some notable reviews of her various work. I think we've proven the article should be kept already, but if anyone wants to add that in a Reception section, just search for the magazine mentioned, and her name, to verify the quotes.  I doubt she'd be making that up though.   D r e a m Focus  03:19, 17 February 2010 (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.