Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenell Edmonds


 * 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   redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members with no prejudice against spinning it back of if/when better sources are available. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shenell Edmonds

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable per WP:ENT.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete She only has 1 role. WP:ENT requires multiple, significant roles. Lionel (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * She's had more than one significant role.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Within the scope of notability, the subject must meet one or more of the criteria in a particular category. As such, she clearly meets the second criteria of WP:ENT. The other criteria, in my opinion, are subjective. What may be significant, unique, prolific or innovative is not defined and varies with each editor according to their own understanding of the term. The subject has a large fan base, as well as a fan club, where members pay $65 for each event. Another event charged people $175 each and sold out. Cindamuse (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:ENT. Edmonds is one of the youngest contract actors on a network (ABC) soap opera with an extensive fan base. These links barely touch the surface of her fan base and popularity. Cindamuse (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those links do not show that she has either a significantly large fan base or a cult following. They're nothing more than routine IMDB-like listings focusing on soaps. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those are soap "fan" and soap magazine sites. She is there because she has a large fan base. If she didn't have fans, she wouldn't be there. Cindamuse (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A perfect point well made. Non-notable cast members do not have the following that does she, nor the coverage on so many OLTL fan pages. And "fan pages" are eaxctly where one finds fans. No mystery there.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep (upped from weak per Cindamuse's observations) While hesitant to suggest a "keep" for a chld actor with essentially two roles, it must be noted that two is "multiple" not singular and that she had a significant role in each project... third billing in Couples Only and a significant role in (so far) 92 episodes of One Life to Live... playing a character which has had coverage in multiple reliable sources... showing that as Destiny Evans she has a fan/cult following. WP:ENT is met.  Time to expand and add sources through regular editing, not delete because it has not (yet) been done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * The WP:ENT multiple–appearance rule is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Couples Only appears to be nothing more than a non-notable student film (the director won a "Best Student Film" award for a film made a year later). Plainly does not meet that criteria, even if "multiple" is understood to mean "more than one." —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As Cindamuse clearly points out, WP:ENT has more than one criteria that may be met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Only one notable role and no other reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:ENT. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The nom is using a rather narrow interpretation, while guideline actually encourages a broader view when they all specifically instruct "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"... specially if there is an ultimate good for the project... and this does not mean it has to be right now, if improvement over time is possible. OH... I might've tended to agree if she had been a lead in the one film and then in only 3 or 6 episodes of a notable series.  Such could be more easily arguable as not meeting the spirit of WP:ENT.  But what we have, apart from her lead role in Couple Only (and it does not matter that it does not yet have an article), is her being a major character in 96 (so far) episodes of OLTL (even if only since last year).... and the quantity is difficult to dismiss, and seem far more pertinant toward notability and meeting the spirir of WP:ENT.  If she had been in three or four marginally notable films in the same period of time, the article'd probably be kept... though there'd be discussions about just what creates notability for films that do not yet have articles.  She is getting (just) enough coverage in reliable sources to push at WP:GNG.  She has a large and growing fanbase based upon her work on OLTL.  She is young and her career is still growing.  These seem decent enough reasons for allowing this article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Only one significant role, and she's played that since last year. In soap-opera terms, when some shows run decades, that's not much. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from her lead role in Couple Only, her 96 (so far) episodes of OLTL, even if only since last year, are nothing to sneeze about. Seems perhaps a bit more pertinant that if she was in three or four marginally notable films in the same period of time. She is getting enough coverage in reliable sources to push at WP:GNG, and while she is young, her career is still growing. That seems a decent enough reason for allowing this article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant roles are only one criteria that can be used to establish notability. She clearly meets the second criteria of WP:ENT with a large fan base and fan club. Cindamuse (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The argument to keep seems to be based on the "extensive fan base" aspect of WP:ENT, but nothing in the sources provided indicate that notability. Of the six links provided in this discussion, one is her official bio from the ABC website, another points to Soap Opera Digest articles which merely mention her but are not about her (the "OLTL Fan Club Weekend" is about the show, and is not "her" fan club... she is mentioned once in the whole article), and the rest merely show she exists and plays a role on the show. Unless something more specific can be provided, WP:ENT does not appear to have been met. -- Kinu t /c  21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from meeting the spirit of WP:ENT, Cindamuse's argument is quite valid. In doing a search for looking for "Shenell Edmonds" + fan club and "Destiny Evans" + fan club one can see this individual does indeed have a large and active fan base, both as herself and in relationship to her character. That many of her the fan clubs are also fans of One Life to Live is to be expected... as it is would be impossible to seperate the individual from what gained her the fan base.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use the Google test to assess of notability, then let's analyze the results a little more closely rather than simply saying "one can see" the fanbase. Many of the links are user pages on Myspace, etc.. and indeed, the OLTL fan club page links to a Myspace fan club for Shenell Edmonds, which is a private page for which the number of "fans" cannot even be determined. Nor is there any critical commentary about the allegedly large fanbase... indeed, if an actor is notable because of a fanbase/cult following, such a thing would likely have some corroboration somewhere, which this does not. Beyond the first page of results, most of the results start becoming irrelevant. So we have no actual "proof" of an "extensive" fan base... just that there are some fans out there, which does not meet WP:ENT, in my opinion. If there is a legitimate source, then add it to the article. Also, to say that many of her fans are also fans of the show is legitimate; however, without actual evidence about a fan club that is specifically for her, to argue that a fan of the show is automatically a fan of hers is an illogical argument. On another note, the search results do indicate that someone posted a link to this Wikipedia article on the soapcentral.com forums, ostensibly advocating for people to come and !vote on this matter. WP:SPA would apply in that case. -- Kinu t /c  01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of a narowest possible interpretation of ENT is not universal, nor per guideline... else all guidelines would not first begin by encouraging editor's use of common sense and their acknowledging the occasional exception. As for SPAs... well, then we'll be on the look out for !votes from new editors, won't we?  None so far though.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if the subject meets WP:GNG from coverage in secondary sources, these sources should be added to the article. Please note that my concerns about why the sources provided in this discussion do not constitute WP:RS have been aired above. -- Kinu t /c  02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with 700+ results to look through, please pardon me if it does not happen in the next few minutes. I comment from my own having a reasonable presumption of notability.  And I was unaware of any guideline that states that sources must be immediately added to the article.  Could you share it?  And also, how do you figure it best to determine if someone has a "cult following" or "fanbase"  if not looking to fansites themselves for verification?  ENT speaks toward such as being an indicator of notability, but is not exactly clear on how a determination is affirmed once a presumption is made. All I have for deteminination are those Wikipedia articles on what comprises each.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You say it yourself: how do you figure it best to determine if someone has a "cult following" or "fanbase" if not looking to fansites themselves for verification? Easy: please provide me a fansite which indicates such a thing. And my point is that this discussion has been going on for six days and, despite having made a good faith effort, I haven't been able to find anything which shows how the subject meets WP:GNG, nor has the article been improved to include any WP:RS indicating such. And if we're going to discuss "presumption"... the text of WP:GNG says: [I]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I do not see the WP:RS, so my presumption that this is a notable subject has not been sufficiently met. I would hope that, as someone who seems to advocate keeping this article, you would be willing to add some WP:RS to the article rather than making ad hominem attacks about my common sense. And please refrain from the sarcasm... it is wholly unnecessary and only serves to undermine your position. -- Kinu t /c  03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? Not mine, certainly. Attack on your common sense? Nope... just offering a clarification of guideline for those who might think yours is the only way to interpret them... as it is not.  Per consensus and many discussions in many forums and about many articles, it is determined that the GNG does not over-rule the SNGs nor vice-versa... either or both may apply, else there would be no need for any subsidary guidelines to exist at all.  Had the GNG been met out the gate, there would still be arguments inre interpretations of ENT, even in the face of GNG.  As for fansites, many pertinent to this actor and her character in relationship to the series for which she has a following have been offered.  Since The New York Times and Washington Post do not operate "fansites", one need look to the fansites themselves. And of the 700+ g-hits, a very minimum are networking sites such as Myspace or Facebook. Soap Opera Network (1), Soaps.SheKnows, Soap Opera Digest (1), TVmagasite, Daytime Royalty, Soapbox, ABC, Soap Opera Digest (2), Daytime Confidential, Michael Fairman, Soap Central, Soap Opera Digest (3), OLTL Fanclub, Soap Opera Digest (4), Soap Opera Network (2), Soaptown USA, and many, many more... are indicative... some in generally reliable (for what is being asserted) sites, and others in fan-centric websites... that the young woman has coverage and has a fan following. It's an insistance that sources must be in the article immediately, that falters in the face of guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the links you have provided, some do not mention the subject of this article, some are cast lists or cast/character bio pages (which do not convey notability, just her existence and role on the show, including the one on ABC.com, which can be considered a primary source), one is a forum (not WP:RS), one appears to be a blog (same issue), and some are generically about OLTL. None of these sites seem to be about the subject of the article, nor are they indicative of meeting any criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Look, I've made a good faith attempt to ask for reliable sources. If the best you can do is provide generic links to soap opera websites, then I feel quite justified in my position. You say that it is determined that the GNG does not over-rule the SNGs nor vice-versa... in this case, neither appears to be satisfied. And no, there is no insistence that sources must be in the article immediately, but if they exist, someone should be able to find them, and one would think that someone with an interest in preserving this article would make it a point to add them to the article rather than posting irrelevant links here. For what it's worth, I'm recusing myself from the remainder of this decision, because I feel I sufficiently asked for sources which might alter my position, but have not been satisfied. I trust other editors to make a determination based on the lack of sources and the discussion provided herein. -- Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have preferrred to look at whatever links you might yourself have thought to offer this discussion, specially as I have only so far gone through the first few dozen or so of the 700+ links available in a g-search. I am more convinced than ever that it serves the project for this article on this young actor to remain and grow over time.  A reasonable expectation is that her coverage will continue to increase as career grows, and not diminish or evaporate.  Your "good faith" but dismissive generality in regards sources leaves an incorrect impression to others, recuse yourself or no, as any proper BLP is dependent on support from many sources.. and not all are required to be substantive.  And even if a few only offer only slight support, they offer support.  When ENT is satisfied on several levels, as it is in this case, by the numerous sources speaking toward her fanbase, toward her directly, and the significance of her role in 92+ episodes, there are enough available, even piecemeal thrugh these sources, to properly support her BLP, and guideline is indeed thus met.  While yes, some mention this person in lessor manner, not all do.  She is spoken of in a soap column in context with her performance at the "First Night Gala" on December 31, 2009, and is interviewed in-depth.  Why would anyone write of her performance if it was not of note?  And Soap Opera Digest is widely accepted as a reliable source for news inre soaps.  That she is written of there is indicative that she is of note and that she has a fanbase.  And while always wise to be cautious on sources, her bio on the ABC site provides vetted information suitable for building the required background for her BLP, specially as her notability is not dependendent on that bio.  Soap Central provides required birthdate and birthplace.  Both Michael Fairman and Daytime Confidential verify her as having been put under contract.  The OLTL Fanpage shows her fan base and fan sites.  Soap Opera Digest announced the "2010 OLTL Fan Club Weekend!" and something called "1st ever Shenell Edmonds Dance Party", where her fans will pay $65 each to be with her at the event, which event is metioned at Soaptown USA.   Soap Opera Network has a mention of Shenell Edmonds' fan club manager and an announcement he made regarding her 16th birthday and her expanding role on OLTL (more evidence of a fanbase).  While acknowledging your having an opinion, I do not share it.  We had the same links available to us and drew diametrical opposite conclusions.  But yes, I fully expect that others will actually look at the sources above, and the others available with searches, and decide for themselves if they represent a grwing career and a fan base.  My own conclusion is that while this article will take some while before it builds further, her career meets several criteria of ENT, and her coverage otherwise is beginning to push nicely at GNG.  And there is reasonable expectation of continued coverage.  The article remaining, and growing over time and through regular editing, serves the project AND its readers.  An immediate demand for perfection, when such potential is there, is not per guideline.  As for editing the article and adding the sources... I might hope someone more versed in Soap Operas will come forward and work from what has been offered here.  Now... if you'll excuse me... there's another 650+ search results to dig through.     Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think that this does not meet ENT or GNG, but I have to agree with Schmidt that the article is just shy of meeting one or the other, ENT by a broader significant career and GNG by some additional substantial sources (the interview noted above is a good one). (In regard to the proof of a large fan base, however, it cannot be gainsaid that there is more than adequate proof that a fan club exists, but ENT requires "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", and frequent mentions of a fan club can be explained away by causes other than the size of the fan base — a small but highly active group of fans, for example, or the use by the studio of the mere existence of a fan club as a publicity tool for the series as a whole. Indeed, it is the "explained" part that is troubling here: I don't think that any of the specific references so far can be used in the article to prove a large fan base without that assertion requiring original research.) The question then becomes, as Schmidt has pointed out, whether the notability principle that GNG "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" should apply. I think it is worth noting that the links on "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" point back to IAR:"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This debate, then comes back to this question: Does the retention of this article about a minor actor which comes close to meeting, but does not yet meet, specific notability guidelines improve Wikipedia? Here's my two cents: While PAPER justifies a greater coverage of topics, including entertainment, than can be covered by a paper encyclopedia, I don't think that it justifies them being covered in as much depth as the types of subject which would be covered in a traditional paper encyclopedia and that implies, at least, that the inclusion criteria, i.e. the notability guidelines, should be applied more strictly in those non–traditional–encyclopedia areas than they are in the more traditional–encyclopedia areas. Thus, in this case, my feeling is that the encyclopedia is not improved by inclusion of this article and my "vote" is still, if I may analogize to RfA, NOTNOW. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More results to dig through, certainly. Your comments are appreciated, and while we disagree about whether or not this young actress has enough notability, or whether it serves the project to allow this very new article remain and grow over time and through regular editing, the manner of your response was quite courteous. You underscore a weakness where guideline actually seems to encourage original research when it speaks toward "large fanbase or cult following", when "large" and "fan" are subjective terms. Those who orchestrated that section of ENT should have attempted to give a more objective means by which editors might quantify those terms. And your "two cents" underscores a point I had not considered, in that as a paperless encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to be "more" than her paperbound breathren, not less... and certainly not a mere imitation.  And we do agree, her notability is very close to that line of ready or not ready.  I just think it's slightly on the plus side and will grow, not diminish. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Convert to Merge and Redirect (by nominator) - Per Schmidt's proposal here. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to a possible merge and redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig, as per User:Cindamuse she does have qualities strongly approaching WP:ENT. I believe this compromise reasonable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, Edmonds was already appropriately added to the list in February 2009. Cindamuse (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's reasonable. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just want to add that while the merge has already been done, I would certainly support a redirect, over a deletion, any day. (But I still think the subject's notability has been established for a stand alone article.) ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject of this article clearly meets notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The notability criteria includes a large fan base. The two most appropriate places for fan clubs and development of a fan base are on the Facebook and MySpace social networking sites. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize this source. Unbelievable. I think this policy guideline needs to be revisited in order to accurately establish notability of persons based on existence of a large fan base according to WP:ENT. What constitutes a "large" fan base to one person may not reflect the opinions of another individual. This has gone way beyond subjective in determining this individual's notability. Subjective criteria, factors, and opinions to determine notability. Highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members, or Delete. I'm not convinced that this person meets WP:ENT or WP:BIO at this time. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 5 September 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.