Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Lee

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 18:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Lee
Likely vanity. Only claims to notability are "bit" roles in three films, but Internet Movie Database doesn't list her in any of them. (IMDB lists five Melissa Lees, but not this one.) Actors with only insignificant credits are not notable. MysteryDog 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Just being an actor in the very broadest sense of the word does not make one notable. Uncredited roles don't clear the bar. -R. fiend 20:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per R. fiend. DS1953 20:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I may well be one of the most inclusionist voters when it comes to actors, as I generally believe that an IMDB entry should equal a WP entry. However, this one is way too non-notable even for me.  Might even be a hoax, as it's hard to imagine anyone behaving like a "diva" whilst cast as an extra(!)  Even if we swallow the whole thing, though, it's still non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be very hesitant to make the claim that an IMDb entry should equal a WP entry. IMDb has no rules against self-promotion as we do, and they really will list just about anyone. I don't know if your criteria extends beyond actors to Key Grips, Gaffers, 3rd Assistant editors and the like, but if it does I'd encourage you to think about this policy of yours, especially when we consider the B and C grade films that are made and sold straight to DVD on the interent these days. -R. fiend 02:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * While I doubt that anyone is exactly hurrying to write an article on some guy who was second-unit assistant dolly grip on some early-70s spaghetti western, I don't see why WP couldn't or shouldn't include such an article if someone was willing to write it. The obvious question would be: why bother to waste time duplicating info that's already on the IMDB?  The answer to that is simple: the IMDB is not open information.  It's riddled with ads, including incredibly-intrusive Flash ads, and some of it already requires a paid account to access.  The information needs to be freed. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  12:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can think of one person who might be anxious to write an article on the second-unit assistant dolly grip on some early-70s spaghetti western, and that's the second-unit assistant dolly grip on some early-70s spaghetti western. We've had problems with people using IMDb to justify wikipedia vanity articles before, and I'm not anxious to encourage it. IMDb basically promotes vanity, and if we mirror them then we are promoting vanity as well, which I am loath to do. While actors, based on their prominent physical appearance in films and our culture's obesession with celebrity, are generally much more notable than people of equivalent ability in other professions, I hardly think anyone in any way associated with a movie is. Have you been to a film recently? Have you seen how long it takes all the credits to scroll across the screen at the end? Is every one of those names in every single movie worthy of an encyclopedia article? Even actors, I would say, should have a substantial role or two in a film/TV show (and by substantial I don't mean "leading" or even "major", but something better than an extra/nonspeaking/uncredited role or "Man in cab line #4"). Wikipedia and IMDb serve different (but overlapping) purposes, and wikipedia should not try to be IMDb. They will always be a better film database than we are, but we will always be a better encyclopedia. -R. fiend 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition can you honestly say these people, for example, should have wikipedia articles?   -R. fiend 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because if we kept it, I would deserve an article as a politician. --Scimitar 21:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn --Xcali 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity, unverified claims. --Etacar11 00:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- clever vanity. MPS 17:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .