Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Sheffield


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Simone Sheffield

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:N — raeky ( talk 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn per WP:BIO. Cf. her IMDB page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources. Including to the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. No questions about her notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a couple passing mentions in a few articles is enough to qualify for WP:N, people are mentioned, quoted in news all the time in this capacity and it doesn't mean they should have a wikipedia page. I think she should be mentioned more then in passing about someone else or a minor project to be notable. — raeky ( talk 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". There are many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements. Further she has (co)produced several films, satisfying WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work,..." -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there enough to satisfy that she has "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." If so then I will admit she meets notability for WP:CREATIVE. I just don't see that. What "significant" or "well-known" work has she played a major role in creating? We can't possibly have a page for every producer, associate whatever of any film ever released in the box office? They should meet some standard above and beyond just that. None of those films shes credited on IMDB are significant that I can tell. — raeky ( talk 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment... actually wiki CAN have articles for every film and video producer... as long as they have coverage in reliable sources and whose assertions of notability can then properly sourced, so as to meet the inclusion requirements of guideline. Will be looking into expansion and sourcing this evening.... then I'll be back to either opine a keep or delete based upon what I will have been able to accomplish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, with a remark that this diff shows why editors need to put articles on their watchlist when they tag them. This is fundamentally promotional rather than encyclopaedic in nature, and as far as I can tell unsourced and unsourceable via reliable sources.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor you're talking about (TG4M) is Bobbi Miller-Moro the wife of Luis Moro who setup and solely maintained several pages for her friends, family and co-workers and just recently had her page (her autobiography) deleted on WP:N issues. There's obvious NPOV issues with this article since it was created and the bulk of content added by a friend likely acting on Mrs. Sheffield's behalf. Bobbi also stated she was going to hire a company to maintain these pages on wikipedia for her, so future NPOV issues could become a big problem for these pages. — raeky ( talk 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely there are many issues with the quality of the article. But one has to distinguish between the notability of the subject (qualifying for having a separate article on WP, and requiring sufficient reliable secondary sources), and on the other side the reliable sources (which are lacking in the article at the moment) needed for the statements and claims made. To my opinion there are enough reliable sources to support notability of the article as such. A certain amount of primary sources for non-controversial claims can be acceptable, but I agree that secondary sources need to be added (although not to the extend as indicated by the citation tags at the moment). Non-verifiable matter can of course be deleted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably went a little overboard with the fact tags, but it goes to illustrate that virtually nothing there is sourced. What source there is is a primary source (or own websites). I don't feel that we should keep articles until we have sufficient sources to qualify it for WP:N and I don't think we've presented/seen enough to qualify it for WP:N now. Which sources are you referring to, specifically, that establish notability? — raeky</i> ( talk 10:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising, which has no reliable sources that establish notability or allow for verification of its claims. In general, we shouldn't have completely unsourced articles, particularly for BLPs. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove the fluff. A search on google books (some of which I have added to the article) shows sources that can been used to cite the article. Further, a seacrh including the names of her Bollywood clients shows her being quoted in many reliable sources (again, some of which I have added). I agree that it has many problems, but feel that with work, it can be made a suitable and encyclopdeic entry for Wikipedia per WP:CLEANUP... mostly, the hyperbole inserted by the original author has got to go... unless properly sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt beyond the passant mentions that she is an agent for the two indian actresses, everything else is self-published. The google books ref was actually to a 1983 issue of "The Advocate: The National Gay and Lesbian Magazine" -- while the search page indicates her name is mentioned in the article in question, the text isn't readable in the cite provided (here ) -- so i've removed that for now as it doesn't establish anything about her (not sure if the advocate is RS anyway, but it's a moot point at the moment). That leaves us with passant mentions that she manages the two indian actresses, refs on online databases showing she worked for motown (or in the screenworld annual). All the sources that mention anything about her are self-published. Still fails in my opinion on WP:BIO and WP:NOTE and WP:V (since all the info actually about her is not reliable). Specifically, she meets none of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing -- "Screenworld" is a directory that strives to publish the basic data of every movie produced in a given year.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm not impressed by the SPS about her "charity work" or the "name dropping" of other celebs. I will be looking to find independent sources that speak about her in relationship to her film companies, and covering her "coming out of retirement". And I feel that I may find her in archives covering her early career. And what's the deal about adding "fact" for her ethinic background? She says it herself and its not the least bit controversial...and it seems it not being specifically covered anywhere else shows that it is not of any special merit... and it certainly is no assertion of notability. I think we can accept her own word on her ethnic heritage.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not overwhelming, but there seems to be enough ntoability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - She meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE, as she has played a major role in co-creating several a significant works as identified by the several award winning films that she has produced and co-produced. Esasus (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral-I don't think she meets the Notability criteria [] and some of the materials lack reliable citations []. It is true that she is/was the international agent for two well known Bollywood actors but is that enough to pass the notability threshold? I was leaning towards Delete but after following the recent efforts of some of the editors like User: MichaelQSchmidt I think there's a small chance that the article can be salvaged.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2009 (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.