Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Mitchell (actress)

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 delete‎. The delete arguments are strong and policy-based. The keep arguments are not, repeatedly mentioning that this person was in something Oscar-worthy without indicating the Oscar's relevance for this individual over many others working on same projects. Multiple relistings have not resolved this. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mitchell (actress)

[edit]

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

Emily Mitchell (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one of the refs - the briefest of stories - is about the subject. The rest are about a film in which she acted. Does not pass GNG. Looks like a promotional article, insofar as the main contributor was able to offer a professional photo of the subject. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not happy at closing this as "no consensus" because I find the brief "privacy" concerns from JoelleJay convincing. More discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and agents are aware of this page and have been in discussion with other editors. Elleem22 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoelleJay makes a good biography of living persons point about biographies of minors. Age is a factor here, per Wikipedia policy. This biography of a minor hangs off several sources that aren't about the article subject, but about several movies and list their cast members, and a single source that is. The one source that is is a television interview that is a couple of minutes long. There's nothing in the sources documenting this subject's life and the documentation of this person's works is not multiply, independently, and in-depth sourced. Ironically, the article's very creator is making the case here in this discussion that documentation of this person's work is slim. For a 60-year-old actor with no documentation of xyr life and only mentions as cast members in documentation of xyr works, this would be an edge case. When documentation of a child's life and works is slim, we should err on the side of not including that child in Wikipedia. Multiple in-depth independent documentation of this person's life and works has to exist and the person has to be older than an age that per policy causes us to set the bar particularly high for content. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't s Shirley Temple level child star that's beloved by millions, this is a child that does acting... Has never headlined a major production, nor done anything to rise above the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She plays the lead role in Ordinary Angels, which was supposed to be out in 2023, but due to the SAG strike, was moved to 2024. She co-leads with Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson; this is a major Lionsgate production. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:8C28:D027:7D4A:5A45 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure I understand the privacy issue. Every fact in the article was sourced from a publicly accessible source. We didn't do any investigative journalism, or even any synthesis of such. Are you saying the L.A. Times is violating the privacy of this actor? The career of actors depends on publicity. If her parents or her agent had any say in this, they'd likely be saying, "Strong keep!!". What is the goal here? Whom are we protecting, exactly? Owen× ☎ 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agent and parents are a "Strong Keep". Elleem22 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NACTOR applies only to "significant roles", which I think is referring to a leading actor or other person with a critical role in the film. This is a long way from that, I think. NACTOR was never meant to override the GNG by giving notability-by-proxy to everyone who appeared in a notable movie. No one here seems to disagree that the GNG isn't met (at least for now), and that's what we should go with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2023 (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/Emily_Mitchell_(actress)&oldid=1189666596"