Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Krause (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   keep. Tone 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tina Krause
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable actress, fails WP:BLP. Frmatt (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I was on the fence regarding this one until I checked out the prior AfD which made mention of her filmography, which I checked on IMDB. Over 70 films certainly seems notable to me. I'm also unclear how it fails WP:BLP. Qinael (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source, and considering the rampant meat/sockpuppetry going on in the related AfD, it seems far more likely the IMDB entries are either invalid or nothing but low-budget films. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're referring to here; I didn't see any indication of improper action in the previous AfD on this article. The conclusion of that was that "a prolific actor is notable." I'm not aware of anything that has changed her status as that, or what evidence the claim that the IMDB filmography is "more likely either invalid or nothing but low-budget films" is based upon. I'm not comfortable deleting an article on a "probably not important." In any event, WP:PEOPLE stipulates "2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There's really no question that she's prolific, low-budget or not, and the inclusion of "cult following" in point 2 would to me indicate that B-rated films are not automatically discarded for this criteria.  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I said related (as in Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy) not previous. There is no reliable sources showing she has a significant "cult" following nor that she has made prolific contributions to the field purely based on IMDB listings (which, again, is not a reliable source). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. I'm not sure that AfD is related, myself, other than the fact that she did appear in that film. I think that you're misunderstanding the general principle stated in WP:MOVIE that notability (not reliability - important difference) is not implied by a film's (not an actor's) inclusion in such "comprehensive film guides" for the reason that everything, notable or not, is listed due to their comprehensive nature. As the Note expounding on the point states, "Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject." While a movie being listed in IMDB does not make it notable, an actresses filmography is something that can be used to define prolific contributions. IMDB is most certainly a reliable source, and virtually the definition of it regarding statistics such as filmographies. The rule simply says that it does not automatically confer notability by inclusion therein.  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not misunderstanding it at all and sorry, but no, IMDB is NOT reliable source per community consensus. And no, its filmography can not be used to define "prolific contributions" - beyond not being reliable, the roles have no context and could, for all you know, be nothing but extra roles. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link or reference, please?  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS, WP:FILMS, WP:MOSFILMS, Wiki search in the Wiki realm and you'll find TONS of discussion at the films project, the RSN, RS itself, etc all upholding this consensus - IMDB is a user-edited site and not a reliable source. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All discusssions about the very narrow margin of consensus to not accept IMDB as a source aside... it specifically is NOT user-edited. As for her list of credits, it is not neccessary to argue about IMDB and citing... consensus at Project Films has accepted that the credits roll of each of the 70+ films is acceptable verification that she has been in them.  As for "prolific"... it would be up to individual editor's to themselves determine if 78 feature films in 15 years is prolific or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, the first two of those make no mention of IMDB whatsoever. The third one says in the discussion of Cast listings, and I quote, "The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB." In other words, the only reference to IMDB in those links is one validating the content of the site as far as casting, with the note that more detail should be added to those basic statistics when forming an article on the cast. On top of that, I did some second-level browsing of the links on the second reference you gave and found exactly what I have been saying so far; IMDB, while unreliable for certain things, is a reliable source for establishing filmographies. Note this archived discussion and Citing_IMDb, which, unlike the above, are actually discussing IMDB. A filmography is all that is being cited in this AfD to establish "prolific contributions," and that is well within the realm of IMDB's reliability. If it was being sourced for biographical information or other details, yes, there would be a problem as per the above references. Filmography is a hard fact, and that is the extent of IMDB's usage here. One, I might add, for which it had been agreed to be a reliable source - the only thing the community agreed on clearly, I should note. If you've got something else (specific, please) that says otherwise, please let me know. So far, my search has turned up what I've shown above.  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The individual in question is fairly well known in the realms of horror movie and independent film making. Deletion would seem to be counter-productive. TVPowers (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete completely fails WP:BLP. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you specify some particular points in which it fails? Thanks,  - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A lot of single name roles (read that as usually a small role) or roles as "White Trash Woman", "Snotty Socialite #1" or "Acid Woman in Black" in mostly straight to video films don't make someone look like they pass WP:ENT to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, like many actors, she has some roles in the beginning of her career that were simply descriptives... IE: as 'Victim' in Virgin Sacrifices (1996), or 'Woman in the forest' in Quicksand at Deadman's Creek (1999). But with respects... almost all her roles, including those many where she was the star, are 'single name' characters. For this genre, that'e not a strike, but an expectation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:ENT, albeit it in a niche area where Wikipedia's general coverage is weak. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I consider 78 feature films in 15 years to be prolific. Further, she does receive postive response in horror genre-specific reviews about her films and her roles in them. Its a niche, certainly... but she has carved (no pun intended) a very solid place for herself in that niche. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per MichaelQSchmidt. Also, usage of IMDB for personal info is really bad. But I don't see anything wrong with using it for a filmography. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Prior AfD already concluded that a prolific actor is notable. That didn't change.  In 5 minutes of research I found and added another decent reference.  She's well-known as a prolific b-movie horror/cheap movie actress.  Article has improved since this AfD started. --Milowent (talk) 04:10, 2 September 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.