Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Melton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is significant disagreement as to whether the subject's two roles as Daphne Blake in the two Scooby-Doo! television movies are sufficient to establish her notability. Some editors argued that the two roles were enough to satisfy the significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows part of WP:NACTOR, while other editors argued that these roles were not distinct or significant enough because of the relative difficulty in finding in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Melton

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kate Melton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress possibly fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. Lack of third-party sources found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The films have Wikipedia pages, which suggests that they are notable. TV-movies can be just as notable as any other movie; I don't think there's a policy that treats them differently. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, then there's the issue of the lack of third party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tyw7, where did you search in WP:BEFORE? I get 14 results for her name and Scooby in one database alone. Will review them and add relevant info to article tomorrow. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, well I count those mentions as 1 source. Are you counting every "hits" as different sources?
Google is hitting Wikia, Amazon, LinkedIn, etc.
Google News is hitting reviews for the Scooby-Doo movie. And a different Kate Melton. https://rbj.net/2019/10/24/mary-cariola-founded-center-to-give-more-meaning-to-kids-lives/ --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tyw7, thank you. How can you count what I am looking at and you have not as one source? You haven't seen it. You don't know what database I used. It was Proquest Global Newsstream, a newspaper database, not a simple search engine. The articles wouldn't count as one source if they have different authors and publishers. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, Well you said you found 14 results in one database alone. You didn't mention that it's a search engine. I was thinking more of a database like IMDB.
If you're talking about https://search.proquest.com/results/4E25B38D244F408FPQ/, I had a check and none of them are for the right Kate Melton. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1324257594 talks about an 86 year old.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/862978601 talks about a Kate Melton that lived through the 1920s.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1418736984/4E25B38D244F408FPQ/10?accountid=10297 is not relevant either. It mentions a "Kate Melton" from Virginia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tyw7, as I don't have your login, those links are inaccessible to me (and anyone else). Global Newsstream is not a search engine but a newspaper database. There are various types of databases. Getting away from semantics: my comment was: "I get 14 results for her name and Scooby in one database alone." I am highly confident there was not another Kate Melton in Scooby Doo movies. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, care to provide the link to the source?
You sure it's not just passing mentions like Kate Melton stars in the movie. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do that, as it requires a subscription and login. I never said it was something other than passing mentions. I never said it was passing mentions. As I stated earlier, I will add relevant info and sources to the article tomorrow, after I have had a chance to review them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-11-et-scooby-doo11-story.html is your source? It's more of a review than a critique of the actress. There's only 1 line devoted to Kate: "But Hayley Kiyoko, Kate Melton and Robbie Amell, as brainy Velma, resourceful Daphne and square-shouldered Fred, respectively, do splendid work as well." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you have quoted, and as I have said, it comments on her performance. I don't know where you find "critiques of actresses," except for grand dames or character actresses, and those come in books and are critiques of careers rather than of people. Reviews are typically about a film with some information about performances. Another thing: unless you know her personally, would you refrain from referring to Melton by her first name, as we do in articles? Ok. I've spent too much time answering your many questions in this AfD--and it's partly my fault for deigning to respond--but I have more constructive things to do here. Do not ping me again for this AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first you accuse me of failure of doing a BEFORE. Then you said you found "14 results" in one database alone and you refuse to link to the articles. And when you did, it's a link to a newspaper review of the movie itself with only 1 line mentioning the actress.
You were being belligerent and assuming bad faith of me. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is inflammatory to accuse an editor of bad faith. See WP:AOBF. I request you strike that comment and amend it to something civil before an admin closes the discussion.
I asked where you completed BEFORE, which is a clarifying question that is ok to ask in deletion discussions, to learn whether you used anything specialized or only the almighty Google. I said I found 14 hits and would add anything relevant to the article later. I never said you didn't look or that all 14 were useful. It was merely a comment; I didn't even vote until hours later. Do point out where I was belligerent or strike that adjective as well. I only see relies to your questions.
Those subsequent questions demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with periodical databases and how they work. That's OK--doubtless many editors haven't taken a research and writing class in high school or in university, at least not in the digital age, or are uninitiated in terms of newspaper research, and don't get that it's a different animal from Google... until someone explains it to them. Then they usually get it that the URLs are useless without a login; "via" is in the citation template so people aren't met with a subscription wall they can't hope to overcome. So let's try this again... In what I hope is my final attempt to placate you on this issue, copy and paste the URLs (my institution extension redacted) into your browser: https://search.proquest.com/globalnews/results/F7615BA7DD0F4B41PQ/1
https://search.proquest.com/docview/422258644 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, well I can view the second URL. By asking where I have completed my before you seem to be insinuating I didn't do any before since you said "I got 14 hits" which means I wasn't looking hard enough. This is a common accusation seen on AFDs.
I did look at Google News, which often brings up hits to news articles. That said your article only has 1 line relating to Melton, and that is being lumped in with her other co-workers. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you have a login or access to an institution's server, or perhaps access in your country is more liberal than in mine. Proquest can be helpful on Wikipedia. "Where did you complete BEFORE?" is a normal question to ask when the nominator has not provided details of that in the nomination statement, as you did not. It's important to explain your reasoning. Thank you for your last comment; it's now clear enough that you have your own lens and narrative when you interpret simple questions as accusations based on other AfD experiences. You didn't strike your comment and you didn't directly address my request to tell me where I was belligerent. If you do not retract or reply, I will assume you stand by them. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, I am at a University, which explains why I have access. That's why I was trying to see which Proquest link you were talking about. Since Wikipedia frowns upon commenting on other user's actions and commenting further will probably extend into WP:PERSONALATTACK category so consider this matter closed. Agree to disagree. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I did not speak of links; I wrote about an article. Anyway, now you know a thing or two about Proquest and so does anyone else who read this thread, and that is excellent. This is unresolved until you acknowledge that you crossed a line when you accused me of bad faith and belligerence. Bad faith is a serious accusation. Now I am to take it that personal attack is on your mind. Well. Yes, we shall agree to disagree: closed for you, open for me. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Except the usual social media pages, I could not find any mention but this very trivial mention in a Portuguese language article... Fails WP:GNG; and given that no coverage could be found, all three criteria of WP:NACTOR (since, if her role was significant and those movies too, then there would be some kind of coverage...) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Toughpigs. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Played a named character (a character notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, apparently) in two films. That is significant. I found several articles in one newspaper database, adding one source, the LA Times, which comments on her performance. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DiamondRemley39, the line in question merely says "But Hayley Kiyoko, Kate Melton and Robbie Amell, as brainy Velma, resourceful Daphne and square-shouldered Fred, respectively, do splendid work as well." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a point, Tyw7? I see you commented about this above as well. How about we both stop cluttering up the page? Don't ping me again in this AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" as relates to WP:ENT. So: it does not need to meet WP:GNG. She played a notable character, Daphne Blake, in two films, and there is at least one review out there that talks of her performance in one of those popular films. The article now has a reliable secondary source. Still could use more sources, but that's a whole different animal. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria is "multiple" significant roles in notable productions, she only has at best 1 significant role, Just because it is 2 productions does not change it from being 1 role and so cannot create notability. I also have long argued that it takes more voice roles for notability to be met than live action roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, she has not performed in any voice roles, so why bring that into this discussion? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I misunderstood the role in the films in question. On further thought considering they are direct to video that is the main issue. I may have seen one of them as I think about it more. I still stand by my view that it is one role not the required multiple roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And FYI, the mode of the films as well, as they were not direct to video. The first broke ratings records on the channel on which it aired. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per (probably/hopefully) WP:TOOSOON. To address the only non-per X !votes, the subject has clearly only had one substantive role, and thus does not pass WP:NACTOR, while the source presented above (and those revealed by a thorough WP:BEFORE search) are insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Indeed, wrt the latter, if that is the most in-depth source found, then GNG is some time (not to mention persistent covergae) away yet. Cheers, ——Serial # 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on her major role as Daphne Blake passes WP:NACTOR Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t have any prejudice toward keeping or deleting (though I do lean on the side of delete), but at what point do we decide which TV show or movie is “big enough” to supersede what the NACTOR criteria is supposed to be? Take a case like Melanie Liburd... appearance on two extremely popular shows, sure, yet absolutely no sources to verify even the most basic BLP reqs. When will we put a lid on this kinda stuff? Trillfendi (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not super relevant, but I'll answer anyway. The sources on the Melanie Liburd article are adequate to support the information that's there, which is that she's an actress and a list of her roles. It's only a BLP concern if somebody adds information about her that doesn't have a source. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two BLP related items are there. 3 sources are given for the whole article: one of them being some random person’s wordpress blog and the other two being Deadline used to source a role and that’s it? That’s supposed to uphold notability standards? I have to wonder why the bar has sunk so low to this nadir of a standard. Hence why articles such as this get put up for deletion everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_Melton&oldid=959836405"