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 for several reasons. Firstly, as pointed out by User:BigBlueFish, the subject can be said to meet notability guidelines based on her appearances and award nominations. Secondly, WP:OWNership is not grounds for deletion - that requires dispute resolution and cleanup of the article. In the event an editor has violated WP:3RR, administrative action can be sought at that time, however deleting an article to "ensure that [an editor] does [their] homework before trying again" is inappropriate and disruptive. Thirdly, despite my warning earlier in the discussion, this debate rapidly degenerated into arguments over just about everything except reasons to delete the article, including some perhaps-not-entirely-good-faith attacks against the author. Finally, the one and only thing I was able to get out of this discussion was that there is definite incentive to "whip the article into shape," a conclusion also drawn from the extensive edit history of the article since it's nomination. If there are still concerns about an editor's conduct in relation to this article, bring it through dispute resolution, not through AfD. As stated below, a user is not a reason to delete an article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Ann Gisondi[edit]

Toni Ann Gisondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Former child actor whose major credit was in Annie. Only one other credit. Rest of article is trivia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few more Annie actor bios by Seahamlass (talk · contribs) that are similar. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: I created this small article on Toni Ann Gisondi, as well as articles on some of the other Annie orphans from the film, because I believed there was a need for them. Their names are mentioned in several other Wiki articles - Annie (film), Annie soundtrack etc - but are always in red. Wikipedia is always looking for people to fill in these red 'gaps'and I was just trying to help. It may be 'trivia' to Delicious carbuncle, but as their names are already mentioned so many times on Wikipedia, I'll bet my bottom dollar there are a lot of people out there interested in the article/s. By the way, the article is fully referenced. --Seahamlass (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being dismissive of the subject of the article, I meant "trivia" literally - Annie continuity gaffes, names of siblings, etc. Red links are often better turned into black text than articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: I understand Delicious carbuncle's point, but don't agree with it. There are many, many actor/actress stubs and short articles on Wikipedia about people who have only made one or two film appearances, so I don't see why this one should be deleted. The girl who took the lead role in Annie, Aileen Quinn, didn't exactly go on to be famous after the movie either - but no-one is suggesting her article be deleted. --Seahamlass (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Andrea McArdle is IMO a good example of an Annie+ notability. Whereas many child performers have articles despite less-than-stellar adult careers, this could largely be because their precocious fame was then comparatively widely known. An obscure child player who then goes on to very little has a considerably more tenuous shot at notability. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with Andrea McArdle being a good example of an Annie 'notable,' although I don't think she is very well known in Britain - apart from die-hard Annie fans. The film of Annie, however, has made the child actors featured into on-going 'stars,' as the film is show on TV each year etc. Anyone Googling the film will come across numerous websites either detailing the film cast, or asking where they are now. The same with YouTube etc. I would argue that these young actresses are 'notable enough for Wikipedia' because, 27 years after the film was made, people are still talking about them.--Seahamlass (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am British, have never seen a Annie film or stage show and yet still remember Andrea McArdle's name from the national newpapers 30 years later. Possibly selective memory maybe but I went straight to her article without having had cause to recall her since 1978.Plutonium27 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by me anyway, having put in my 50p's-worth. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm going to have to give this one a thumbs down. Onher own she just doesn't meet the notability criteria. Maybe there could be an article that compiles all the Annie Orphan actors?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Please keep the discussion about this article. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the Young Actors Award makes her meet notability in my mind. The tone of the article is a little unencyclopedic, but that can be cleaned up. matt91486 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only needs to be notable for one thing. -Jahnx (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I created this small article, as well as articles on some of the other Annie orphans from the film, because I believed there was a need for them. Their names are mentioned in several other Wiki articles - Annie (film), Annie soundtrack etc - but are always in red. Wikipedia is always looking for people to fill in these red 'gaps'and I was just trying to help.--Seahamlass (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just not seeing notable; far too many versions of "Annie" to list all orphans (or even all Mollies). King Pickle (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs to drop the OR and essaying (e.g. "If you look closely at the film, ..."), and junk the irrelevancies (e.g. comment in ref #1). -- Fullstop (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (copied from talk page) I have removed, once again, the "quote" you added to the reference you placed within the Toni Ann Gisondi article. I am anxious to keep this article on Wikipedia, but comments on its entry on the Articles For Deletion page suggest this quote should be removed if the article is allowed to stay. If you put it back again, it could lead to the article's eventual deletion. I have, however, kept your reference, just not the quote. --Seahamlass (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Can someone tell me why using the quote function for the references is forbidden, and my using the quote function will lead to the deletion of the article? Isn't the quote function there to be used? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just placed an Edit Wars warning on the above user's talk page, Richard Arthur Norton, as he is persisting in replacing his lengthy/wordy reference on this article, despite my asking him not to - per the suggestion/recommendation made here on the AFD page. I don't want to get into a slanging match with him, as he obviously doesn't understand reason, so I'm taking no further part in this debate. --Seahamlass (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I couldnt accept your changes (see below). You changed the publisher of the website, and you changed the title of the article to something incorrect. I am not sure why you changed it, but I cannot allow incorrect information to remain, thats why I reverted it. ^[1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not mindlessly reverting your edits. This is the correct title and correct publisher for the reference. (see below) ^[2] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roles in notable films and awards are all that make actors notable and the subject of this article covers the criteria. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I read it, she did not win the Young Actor's Award, she was only nominated. If keep votes have been based on winning awards, they need to be reconsidered. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin: The article originally said: "Her portrayal won Toni Ann a Best Young Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture nomination...", which seems to have made people think she won the award, which she did not. IMDB confirms and I have fixed the wording. Please consider this when tallying the votes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are zero secondary sources, all come from IMDB. And the article falsely stated she won an award, and was only nominated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re: Richard Arthur Norton's statement that the article "falsely states" the actress won an award. It actually stated "Her portrayal won Toni Ann a Best Young Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture nomination..." There are also more secondary sources now too, see below, than just the IMDB.^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} --Seahamlass (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The other deceptive thing is that you keep removing the quote function for the references. In the cases I have looked at she is only mentioned in the list of people in the movie, they are just directory listings, no more information that you would find in the trailer for the movie. What she is missing is coverage in reliable "secondary" sources that confer notability, such as a newspaper interview or a magazine interview. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am willing to change my objection if you leave the quote functions in the references, so people can see the quality of the reference. I have reformatted the St. James one, I hope you don't mind. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too am considering a switch to delete. An editor who insists on faking references has either not read WP:BLP, or is WP:OWNing, as is apparently also the case with the 'nominating' thing. It appears Seahamlass is super stressed by this AfD, and that she needs to take a wikibreak and step back for a bit. As such, a delete would probably be a good thing at this point since it would ensure that she does her homework before trying again. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree with the closing rationale for a delete in the above comment. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and don't demolish the house while it's still being built. If the subject is notable enough for the article, it should be kept. This is not the type of case in which the whole of an article on a notable subject is unusable as copyright violation or patent nonsense. There is useful, researched content involved, and deleting it to "teach Seahamlass a lesson" is not on.

The appearance in multiple notable works and the award nomination seem to me to satisfy WP:BIO. Some of the remaining content on personal life and so on is questionable, but the article itself looks to me like it's worth keeping. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure, as the nominator of this article, what has gone so wrong with this AfD for a article which so clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. I suspect it has to do with in part with sentimentality for Annie and a misreading of the actor's credits. I know it's bad form, but I'm quoting below the guideline for notability for entertainers, so that anyone can see that guideline is not met, nor even approached:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

* Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.

* Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" seems pretty fairly met. Two feature films and a soundtrack recording is definitely multiple. However, as you say, it is a guideline and does not guarantee notability, just as failure to meet it does not preclude notability. Frankly, I too am unsure "what has gone so wrong with this AfD". It has received thoughtful, constructive comments both in favour and against deletion and has the attention of an admin to mediate the process. I suggest you stop complaining about its progress and focus on ways that you can further it. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It would be more accurate to summarize her career as a supporting role in a single feature film (thereby included on the soundtrack) and a minor role in a made for TV movie. If it's all the same to you BigBlueFish, I'll keep complaining until I'm satisfied that people actually know what they're voting on and the standard they should be using. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This is not a vote. You've made it quite clear where comments may have been based on mistaken understanding. If you wish to complain about the conduct of one or more users in the discussion then take that to an appropriate dispute resolution channel. If you have anything new to add to the discussion on the article we will be glad to hear it, but as it stands, repeating the statements about the award nomination is just distracting from the discussion which has already moved on.

  You can summarise the subject's career however you like, but the guidelines don't qualify the size of role in multiple notable works. Rather than being legalistic about this, it seems sensible to focus on whether or not it makes common sense to keep an article about this person. On the one hand, it connects two notable publications together by a common artist, and documents a significant nomination for an award. On the other, the nomination could (and actually should) be documented on the film's page, and maybe the appearance in The Children's Story isn't notable enough, and best left to IMDb. If so, should this title redirect to Annie (film)? BigBlueFish (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  BigBlueFish, you may be confusing me with another editor involved in this discussion. I haven't made a single comment about (or to) any specific editor, other than to address your comment. And the guidelines do qualify the size of the role by specifying "significant" roles or "multiple" "feature" roles in "notable" productions. I hoped by posting them here that these kinds of distortions of the guideline could be avoided. I like your suggestion of a redirect to Annie. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weeelll, with 40,000+ "articles" on one-horse hamlets in France and Austria (whose claim to fame is that they have a zip code), or an "article" on some 1860s village chieftains (the only mention of whom is a census), WP:N has been effectively degraded to being a toothless paper tiger. Its only a guideline anyway.

On the other hand, the Gisondi article twice violates the cardinal Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, not to mention Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

But iff an article can be whipped into shape (which does not mean 'make it longer'), then its not productive to delete it. This iff condition was also the basis of my 'keep' (which btw remains current atm). But as of right now, Seahamlass is "protecting" "her" page, and with that the article remains unfixable and just begging to be deleted.

With three full-body policy violations (BLP, NOR, NOT), plus OWN, the WP:N guideline is just icing on the cake.
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user isn't a reason to delete an article. This article could quite easily be "whipped into shape" by cutting it right down to a handful of facts, all now properly sourced, the objection to which from a deletion point of view is notability. This seems to be a clearly borderline case, and the call is probably better made with people more experienced than I am, having no knowledge of things like the French village articles, etc, myself. Any policy violations by users or by content don't permeate the entirety of the article and as such should not affect the article's suitability for inclusion. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the previous comments again, in the context which they appear, and read the policies referred to above. When you have done all that come back and revise your comment. This is not a "borderline case" as you suppose, and with your lack of attention you are doing your friend a disservice. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revisited the policies in question, and can confirm for your information that none of them recommend that an article is deleted if just part of it violates the said policy. Particularly, WP:OWN doesn't advise any different an approach to developing the content being "owned", including deletion. Please point out in a more specific, civil, way if there is actually something I've missed which contradicts what I just said. As for notability, we've clearly established through discussion that it is borderline, but it seems that the question of notability is the one we're dodging because it's too difficult. BigBlueFish (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to step in here to defend BigBlueFish, who seems to be taking some flack on my behalf. This editor is not, as Fullstop alleges, my 'friend' - just one of your own fellow Wikipedeans and merely trying to do his/her job. And while I shouldn't have to explain myself, I have to say that the only contact I have had with BigBlueFish prior to this AFD debate was through a Peer Review they carried out on an article for me.

I would also like to state that I know Delicious carbuncle was only doing his/her job when they decided to nominate this article for deletion. Of course I was against the idea, hence my defence of the piece and subseqent edits to include more references to try and help it stay on Wikipedia.

I always believed Wikipedia was about creating, maintaining or adding to articles which would help people learn new facts, or provide an interest for them. This debate, however, has descended - in my view - into cyber-bullying. If you want the article deleted, then fine, if you want it to stay, then great - but please stop all the rest of the very personal attacks on me and others which have been carried out here. --Seahamlass (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It really doesn't matter whether you choose to call BigBlueFish a 'friend' or 'colleague' or something else. Its just a placeholder.

2. Your possessiveness of the article renders the article impossible to fix, and with that, this biography of a living person becomes a candidate for summary deletion. But no one coerced you into reverting editors who attempted to help clean up. You went on that limb all by yourself.

-- Fullstop (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.