Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cardon (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. Courcelles 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Rebecca Cardon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP, dubious notability. Another editor tried to AFD but didn't finish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (updated from delete) The article has been signifcantly updated, more carefully written, and certainly more adequately sourced. 842U (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is some sourcing out there, such as surely intriguing 1992 article, "WEIGHTS BRING DAD AND DAUGHTER CLOSER TOGETHERNESS COMES FROM BENCH PRESSING"[1] (behind paywall), but overall I'd say she probably is not notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Keep based on improvement noted below.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is no longer unsourced, and more being added. The individual meets notability through WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (IE: The Amazing Race, Soup of the Day, The Scorned, Work Out), and through having significant coverage beginning back in 1992 and extending to now.[2][3] Both surprising and quite rare for a child weight-lift champion turned personal trainer turned actress. Not a one-trick pony. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With no disrespect to the subject of the article, are we equating mere mention in a reliable source with significance? Or aren't we looking for good sources that actually support that the subject of the article contributed significance? The articles (two which appear in prominent newspapers) that mention her TV roles seem only to recount those roles -- there isn't any suggestion that the subject has contributed "significance." The articles in her hometown newspaper are rather chatty, anecdotes that again, don't speak to significance. Taken as a whole, the sources suggest that her career has been more aspirational than actual. Frankly, that the article now includes the subject as having received "Woman of the Week" from a Sportsbra manufacturer is somewhat disingenuous. 842U (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The one sentence about her being a sports bra company's woman of the week is trivial. Feel free to remove it. But even with the earliest articles about her early success as a teen weight lift champion in the Virginia Pilot articles, we do not have just "mere" mentions. And "aspirational"?? 13 episodes of The Amazing Race (2004-2005), and 23 episodes of Work Out (2006-2008), as well as the few films seems "actual" to me, even if not Academy Award material. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So 36 appearances on televsion equals notibility? No... significance equals notiblity. Nothing in thos appearances actually suggest significance.842U (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to disagree, but meeting WP:GNG = notability. Recurring as a significant character in 13 episodes of one notable series and suporting character in 23 episodes of another does indeed equate to notability, specially as she has coverage for her apearances. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met. And that life goes on and she moves on to others things does not negate her earlier notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So 36 appearances on televsion equals notibility? No... significance equals notiblity. Nothing in thos appearances actually suggest significance.842U (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The one sentence about her being a sports bra company's woman of the week is trivial. Feel free to remove it. But even with the earliest articles about her early success as a teen weight lift champion in the Virginia Pilot articles, we do not have just "mere" mentions. And "aspirational"?? 13 episodes of The Amazing Race (2004-2005), and 23 episodes of Work Out (2006-2008), as well as the few films seems "actual" to me, even if not Academy Award material. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With no disrespect to the subject of the article, are we equating mere mention in a reliable source with significance? Or aren't we looking for good sources that actually support that the subject of the article contributed significance? The articles (two which appear in prominent newspapers) that mention her TV roles seem only to recount those roles -- there isn't any suggestion that the subject has contributed "significance." The articles in her hometown newspaper are rather chatty, anecdotes that again, don't speak to significance. Taken as a whole, the sources suggest that her career has been more aspirational than actual. Frankly, that the article now includes the subject as having received "Woman of the Week" from a Sportsbra manufacturer is somewhat disingenuous. 842U (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't get it. She lost Amazing Race and appeased on a show on Bravo network. That does not add up to several major supporting roles as an actress. Where's the beef? Bearian (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not matter that she lost, as its the coverage that matters. And 23 episodes of a Bravo show is something more than an "appearance". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage or "appearance" does not equal notability; it's a logical mistake to conflate the two. In the meantime, there is no reliable source coverage apparently that suggests anything about what the subject of the article has done in her appearances. The coverage notes her appearances while failing to suggest those appearances mattered. 842U (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but having coverage in multiple reliable sources from 1992 until the present, per guideline does indeed equate to notability. Extensive coverage as a youth record holder equates to notability. Recurring and being being covered in multiple reliable sources as a significant character in 13 episodes of one notable series and as supporting character in 23 episodes of another does indeed equate to notability, specially as she has coverage for her apearances. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met. WP:BLP is met. But most importantly, policy is met....as notability requires verifiable evidence, agree with that evidence or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that along with much of the information in the article, the number of episode appearances isn't sourced, nor is the ultra-short film "Nice Pants". How could information like that even get into an article unless its put there by someone promoting the subject of the article? A quick google search turns up zero information on the ultra-short film. And you may be reading between the lines (and enjoying the use of hyperlinks that don't actually support the text you pipe from here) as well as using circular arguments: the subject is significant because the subject is significant. Nothing in the guidelines says that if a person has X number of appearances on television they become notable. What the article needs is a reliable source that explicitly gives support to the significance of the subject. I have yet to see that... unless we're talking about the Woman of the Week "award: from a sports pro manufacturer. 842U (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of hyperlinks in discussion is per such converntions. It is not circular reasoning to point out that the television series have already met notability standards elsewhere within Wikipedia. I do not have to rebuild and source those articles for you here in order to show you the notability found by others elsewhere. And please, your interpretation of WP:ENT runs against existing consensus, as it does not matter per that guideline if she had 2 significant appearances in a notable series or 200, as long as the appearances in notable productions were significant enough for them to be written about in multiple reliable sources (and no, such write-ups do not have to be the main foucus of the articles). And her record of being in those films and television shows may be directly verified in the onscreen credits of the film or television show itself, without me having to offer links to copies of such... but here, go watch the Nice Pants at Spike.[4] However, since you asked, The New York Times subsidiary InBaseline, a reliable source dedicated to accurate reporting of information on actors and film, does indeed verfy her televion appearances in the Bravo and CBS series. She meets notability criteria through significant coverage beginning in 1992 as a youth record holder and leading up to now for her other activities. Her also meeting ENT is simply icng on the cake. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We happen to be building "the consensus" on this article, right here, on whether this subject meets notability requirements. Appearances on television do not equate to notability. The sources that note the subjects appearances hardly detail her roles – as is required. Most of the sources for her appearances simply state that she appeared, without any detail of her role, her acting, her awards, etc. The "Nice Pants" appears to have been more of a video than a film... having received about 1500 hits per year in ten years. 842U (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inre Nice Pants... you wanted verification that she was in it, and such was offered. I never stated that it was some major studio blockbuster. ENT does not mandate that all her productions be notable or appearances significant... only that some be so... and ENT is not the sole criteria that may be used in our consideration... only one that might be considered. We use various applicable guidelines in determing an individual's notability, and consensus is not just a count of heads. We can also discuss whether the individual's coverage since 1992 shows her being worthy of note, as meeting the GNG while even if just grazing ENT would be still be enough, as meeting the GNG for coverage over 18 years is meeting the GNG. Notability may be found in the considering the overall and cumulative parts that make up an individual's career, without ignoring some and spending paragraphs quibbling over others. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We happen to be building "the consensus" on this article, right here, on whether this subject meets notability requirements. Appearances on television do not equate to notability. The sources that note the subjects appearances hardly detail her roles – as is required. Most of the sources for her appearances simply state that she appeared, without any detail of her role, her acting, her awards, etc. The "Nice Pants" appears to have been more of a video than a film... having received about 1500 hits per year in ten years. 842U (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of hyperlinks in discussion is per such converntions. It is not circular reasoning to point out that the television series have already met notability standards elsewhere within Wikipedia. I do not have to rebuild and source those articles for you here in order to show you the notability found by others elsewhere. And please, your interpretation of WP:ENT runs against existing consensus, as it does not matter per that guideline if she had 2 significant appearances in a notable series or 200, as long as the appearances in notable productions were significant enough for them to be written about in multiple reliable sources (and no, such write-ups do not have to be the main foucus of the articles). And her record of being in those films and television shows may be directly verified in the onscreen credits of the film or television show itself, without me having to offer links to copies of such... but here, go watch the Nice Pants at Spike.[4] However, since you asked, The New York Times subsidiary InBaseline, a reliable source dedicated to accurate reporting of information on actors and film, does indeed verfy her televion appearances in the Bravo and CBS series. She meets notability criteria through significant coverage beginning in 1992 as a youth record holder and leading up to now for her other activities. Her also meeting ENT is simply icng on the cake. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that along with much of the information in the article, the number of episode appearances isn't sourced, nor is the ultra-short film "Nice Pants". How could information like that even get into an article unless its put there by someone promoting the subject of the article? A quick google search turns up zero information on the ultra-short film. And you may be reading between the lines (and enjoying the use of hyperlinks that don't actually support the text you pipe from here) as well as using circular arguments: the subject is significant because the subject is significant. Nothing in the guidelines says that if a person has X number of appearances on television they become notable. What the article needs is a reliable source that explicitly gives support to the significance of the subject. I have yet to see that... unless we're talking about the Woman of the Week "award: from a sports pro manufacturer. 842U (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but having coverage in multiple reliable sources from 1992 until the present, per guideline does indeed equate to notability. Extensive coverage as a youth record holder equates to notability. Recurring and being being covered in multiple reliable sources as a significant character in 13 episodes of one notable series and as supporting character in 23 episodes of another does indeed equate to notability, specially as she has coverage for her apearances. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met. WP:BLP is met. But most importantly, policy is met....as notability requires verifiable evidence, agree with that evidence or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage or "appearance" does not equal notability; it's a logical mistake to conflate the two. In the meantime, there is no reliable source coverage apparently that suggests anything about what the subject of the article has done in her appearances. The coverage notes her appearances while failing to suggest those appearances mattered. 842U (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not matter that she lost, as its the coverage that matters. And 23 episodes of a Bravo show is something more than an "appearance". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep i think there are enough sources MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I'm skeptical of someone who arrives on Wikipedia and 127 edits later is rendering a strong opinion in what would have to be a fairly obscure type of discussion on a fairly obscure topic. Wow. 842U (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember WP:AGF and WP:ADHOM. The new editor has been on board since December 8,[5] and the discussion is listed in a ___location where it could have caught even a newcomer's eye. In an encyclopedia anyone can edit, even a 4-week newcomer is allowed to voice an opinion at AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I'm skeptical of someone who arrives on Wikipedia and 127 edits later is rendering a strong opinion in what would have to be a fairly obscure type of discussion on a fairly obscure topic. Wow. 842U (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - looks like all key items mentioned in article is sourced, and as MichaelQSchmidt points out, she does meet the standard set by WP:ENT. Tabercil (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is sufficient coverage here to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2011 (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.