Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melody Pomeroy 2


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Although I share many of the concerns raised by User:Thivierr, that's VfU's problem. This is a valid AfD, with an overwhelming delete contingent, so out she goes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Melody Pomeroy
Second listing. See Articles for deletion/Melody Pomeroy for the first discussion, which ended with no consensus. This actress is not notable. She has not appeared on Broadway, but only in a small role in a touring production of Oklahoma!, and an unstated role in a German production of 42nd Street. There is nothing in this article to indicate that this actress deserves an article in Wikipedia. If she has a starring or featured role on a Broadway production, or if she has some meaningful publicity, then I would reconsider and would not oppose recreation of an article which discussed that notability. Note that she does not have an entry in the Internet Broadway Database.User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reason as last time, as I feel she just barely qualifies. If we can't have an article for her, I request the content be merged/redirected into her high school, where's she's mentioned as a notable alumni.  That way, there's no loss of info, it boosts an existing article, and if she get more press, we can undo the redir.  If somebody types her name (currently no duplicates), they'll be redirected to where info on her exists.  I'ld rather redir to the production company, but it doesn't have an article, and Worthington Christian High School (Ohio) does.  --Rob 21:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. She's a minor off-Broadway theatre actress. She hasn't even starred in any productions. As such, she fails WP:BIO miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. Thivierr - why not write an article for the production company? -  brenneman (t) (c)  22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If AFDs are going to be re-opened till there's a deletion, there's no point in participation.  The only valid delete vote in the old one, was based on her being only a junior miss.  Anybody could have voted in the last one, if they wished.  If we're going to re-AFD till things till they are deleted, than my prior decision to stop bothering with AFDs was probably correct, and I should of stuck with it.  I will not validate this AFD by participation.  --Rob 22:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I listed it on WP:VFU, and was told there was nothing wrong with listing it again.  Why should only deletions be available for rediscussion, and not lack of deletion?  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree both are subject to re-review *if* new the process failed or substantial new information comes to light. Generally, it happens, that new information coming to light favors inclusion.  Only ocassionally does new information favor deletion, but when it does that's a valid reason to.  For instance, if you feel my first "keep" vote was based on unverified information that was removed later from the article, that would be excellent grounds for re-opening.  Also, lets say Pomeroy had done nothing since the Junior Miss (which the other delete voter based their vote on) then I wouldn't have voted, and one single delete vote would be entirely sufficient to delete the article, and there would be no grounds for re-opening it (without new information).  I think its absurd everybody feels that its necessary to pile-on in every AFD with ten people all saying the same thing.  One voter is fine in some cases (as others were free to review it for five days).  I think imperfect processes should be lived with, and attempts to make things perfect, just bog things down, and make things even worse.  There is sufficient verifiable information to sustain an article here.  I don't criticize anybody for wishing to vote delete, as I thought about voting delete the first time.  Its a matter of process, and we have to think about how wasteful of resources we are, on some articles, while totally ignoring others.  This article got a do-over, yet most don't get a once-over.  Finally, I'm not saying you broke the rules, you didn't; what you did was entirely within the rules.  But I still hold to my objection.   --Rob 03:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It can be argued that a three-participant AFD is an example of the process failing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, first I would argue it was two one-particpant processes, and one can be enough (depending). The one-line stub was voted delete (properly) and the full-stub (not full article) was voted keep, properly.  I think if its safe for an admin to do a speedy delete with *no* non-admin review than its safe for a non-admin to be the sole voter, when its open to review by everybody for five days (admins and non-admins).  Now, if I said "keep all actors and screw wp:bio" then a review/relist would be appropriate.  But I gave a valid reason, on which reasonable people can differ.  At some point people have to look at the vast growth of new articles, and AFD listings, and figure out that what once worked doesn't work anymore.  It's a failure.  I see huge numbers of articles with *no* sources, and *no* verification being ignored while attention is paid to articles like this, which have some encyclopedic potential.  It seems the only solution ever proposed for handling AFD backlog is widening speedy-delete criteria (officially and unofficially).  I note, if any of the admins here, had speedy deleted the original one-line stub (which may have qualified) you'ld expect us non-admins to trust you, even though we have no way of reviewing it (e.g. we can't see the content).  You had five days to review this.  That's plenty.  We should have left this, and moved on.  In any event, your desire for more AFDs with more participants is a hopeless cause.  It won't work.  It can't keep up.  It will fail.  We just havn't hit the failure point yet.  We will.  --Rob 03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Admins have (ideally) strict rules on what articles they can speedy, whereas AFD has a broad scope limited only by community consensus. (Personally, I would have relisted that AFD for further content, given the rewrite that barely alleged notability and the limited participation.) While AFD may have major problems, in the meantime, AFD muddles along as best it can, and no AFD variation or replacement would protect a clearly marginal article from consideration just because a previous discussion had demonstrated little interest and no consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If an article's subject is encyclopedic and/or notable, than no amount of re-nominating for deletion will get it removed. *cough* GNAA *coughcough* If something is borderline, or was not sufficiently discussed in previous nomination, re-opening debate is proper.   brenneman (t) (c)  23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor up-and-coming actress. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hardly notable.  Grue   13:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Personally, I think it would be cool if every one of the six billion people alive today had his own wikipedia page.  But as long as wikipedia is only for notable topics, she doesn't belong, because she isn't notable.  At all.  No, not even a little. Rast 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. Very minor actress.  Nothing about the job of "actor" makes one automatically significant.  Friday (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. That might change in a few years, but Wikipedia deals with the here and now, not the future. B.Wind 08:43, 28 November 2005 (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.