Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somaya Reece (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 DELETE. -Doc^g 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somaya Reece

Somaya Reece (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - article was nominated once previously, closed no consensus. The subject of this article does not pass WP:BIO which states that an actor's notability may be determined by that actor's having "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." This performer has no significant roles in anything, with credits including "Harlot (uncredited)" and the like. She is an extra. There are no reliable sources attesting to her notability. Her article is sourced by her own MySpace page, the self-promotional site imeem.com and IMDB. The only independent source is a supposed article in the Orange County Register, the existence of which is apparently unconfirmable online. Much was made in the last AFD about the reliability of IMDB as a citation, so I engaged in a little thought experiment. I uploaded a phony magazine credit for Reece to IMDB. The Orange Coast cover credit is false. IMDB did not fact check it or contact me as the uploader to verify its authenticity. IMDB is not, at least in regards to Reece, a reliable source. While each article is to be judged on its own merits, it is worth noting the deletion of other articles for other actors with a similar level of credits to Reece. Just a few of the recent examples include such non-notables as James McMahon and reality show contestant Scott Long and, tellingly, Hayley DuMond who is not only an actor with more substantive credits than Reece but who is married to a notable actor but was not considered notable in her own right. Given the failure of WP:BIO, the lack of reliable sources, the demonstrated unreliability of IMDB as a source and the precedent of the deletion of many other actors at a similar level of credits, this article should be deleted. Otto4711 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're vandalizing IMDB to prove a point? That's not a "thought experiment". That you cannot confirm the Orange County Register online does not invalidate its use as a source -- it is confirmable offline. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or other stuff was deleted) is not a good argument. -- JHunterJ 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The point still stands, whether you like what I did or not, that it puts the lie to the notion that IMDB is a reliable source, which was pretty much the cornerstone of the "keep" arguments. Whether the OCR article actually exists or not, WP:NOTE requires multiple independent reliable sources which are substantially about the subject. The OCR article, if it indeed exists, would be one. One is not "multiple." Otto4711 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep per reasons given in the first AfD: the combination of IMDB-documented modeling & acting work and MySpace statistics (just the friends/hits/counts that the site records objectively) could meet WP:NOTE. -- JHunterJ 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• As noted in this nomination, IMDB is not a reliable source. It is not fact-checked. One of her credits there is a known fake. It is unfathomable that you would continue to claim that a source which is demonstrably unreliable can be used to relaibly establish notability. Nor have you addressed the fact that WP:BIO calls for significant roles to establish notability. Her roles are not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination. As for her being a model, in addition to the fact that her modeling credits as listed on IMDB are demonstrably unreliable, I would note the deletion of the article for John Stallings, who not only has an extensive modeling portfolio but has been an actual significant participant in two different television series and has multiple verifiable independent sources. While the deletion of other articles is not iron-clad precedent (as I acknowledged last time and this time) it is instructive to look at how other similar articles have been treated. I agree that other stuff exists is not in and of itself reason to keep or delete an article but taken as the last in the string of arguments against this unsourced article for this non-notable person it's icing on the deletion cake. It would be nice if you would actually consider the arguments instead of parroting "IMDB, IMDB." Otto4711 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  And as noted in the last AfD, it would be nice if you could be civil. -- JHunterJ 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Asking you to be open-minded is not being uncivil. But accusations of incivility are a way to deflect attention from the merits of the nomination without addressing them. Otto4711 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  I addressed the points I wanted to address. That you have a bigger axe to grind doesn't make me closed-minded, or a "parrot". Be civil. -- JHunterJ 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• False accusations of incivility are pretty uncivil... Otto4711 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I took a neutral stance at the last AfD, but said "if she is really as notable as the article makes out, then it shouldn't be difficult to source. So why haven't any of the editors voting "Keep" done this? ... I suspect there's quite a bit of exaggeration here". Nothing's been done since - WP:ATT and WP:RS are there for a reason, so I'm going with Delete this time. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - incredibly poorly sourced. If this was seriously kept last time, on the basis of reliable sources existing, then why is the sourcing still so poor? --Haemo 01:45, 8 May 2007 (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.