Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunrise Coigney (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Mark Ruffalo. j⚛e deckertalk 03:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunrise Coigney
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Renominating as she doesn't have any significant coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. She is notable for being Mark Ruffalo's wife. Not notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep  - Although she is only notable due to her husband, WP:N is only a guideline, and if we delete every page we encounter based solely on the notability guideline, there would be a lot of holes in Wikipedia. These articles, Sachet Engineer, Perla Haney-Jardine, Yugi Sethu, Scott Sowers and Sibel Galindez, are BLPs of actors/actresses who have starred in less than three notable films. However, unlike Coigney, these actors/actresses respectively, do not hold any known relationships with those who the WP community deems notable (based on the guidelines of course). The articles I have listed are merely some of Wikipedia pages I have found on the actor-stub page. However, many of the actor-stubs contain valuable information that may benefit readers. Deleting all of these articles based on notability will also place a burden on editors, as a majority of the time, deleting articles leads to dead-links. GuyHimGuy (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - if WP:N is "only a guideline" then why do we cite guidelines at all? She isn't notable. She was in 4 films and notability isn't WP:INHERITED. Not deleting her just so it doesn't create dead links isn't a legit reason to keep the article. What "valuable information" does she hold that users may find to their benefit? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The dead-links created by merely deleting the article in question wouldn't be a problem. However, there are many actor-stubs created each and every day, such as the ones I have posted in the above argument. These actors, by common sense, are less notable than Sunrise Coigney. These articles passed the afc process, despite them completely failing the basic notability guideline (find one article by an independent source that even mentions Scott Sowers, Perla Haney-Jardine or Sibel Galindez; all of whose pages I have read and/or edited on WP. I am a big movie junkie; I saw Perla Haney-Jardine in Untraceable, but little did I know she was the same little girl from Kill Bill. She's notable through common sense-starring as supporting characters in three major films; yet she fails WP's notability guideline for not a single independent article, book or website mentions her name. Kimberly J. Brown: Once a Disney star turned small-scale actress; besides the short biography on IMDB and an informal interview conducted by a high school newspaper, there isn't a single reliable online website mentioning her name.
 * Of course Wikipedia's policies are vital to the integrity of the project, but some of them, such as WP:IINFO and WP:N, simply act as barriers to readers. True information is true information. It doesn't matter if the majority of readers aren't interested on Sunrise Coigney's personal life, or which other movies Frannie's mom from In the Cut was in; someone always will. Wikidata doesn't seem to hold an in-depth summary regarding the personal lives of Sunrise Coigney, Scott Sowers or Sibel Galindez; neither does the internet. All those actor-stubs, along with their histories, deleted based on N and IINFO. When a car has a single flat tire, but at the time the owner is without a spare, is it more ethical to dispose of it or wait until it can be fixed? Can't we simply ignore the problem for now, stamp the notability template on the top of the article in question, and wait until she does something to better fit WP's notability standard. If not, why? Thanks! GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * She was only active for 4 years, being in 4 films that she's not known for. She's not going to just all-of-a-sudden have articles start publishing stories about her. You stated "there isn't a single reliable online website mentioning her name", and it's Wikipedia's job to make sure there is? No. That's not how that works. If she were notable, yes, but she isn't. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I withdrew my vote. GuyHimGuy (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mark Ruffalo as she is a plausible search term but doesn't yet have enough independent notability to warrant an article. I should also mention that WP:ONLYGUIDELINE is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions as it's essentially an (unconvincing) excuse to be dismissive towards them. It also underestimates and overlooks the insight and value that guidelines bring. No prejudice against future recreation of article once independent notability is established, though. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mark Ruffalo - Fair compromise. Any method that doesn't delete the article and its history is fine. But what are we going to do with the other actor related articles that fail to meet the notability guideline?; there are hundreds of them. GuyHimGuy (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2014 (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.