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. I read this as a rough consensus to keep. Obviously the numbers are stronger on the keep side, though the weight of policy argument is closer. It appears we are somewhere in the gray area of WP:ENT, with more people leaning towards the "close enough" side. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Harlacher[edit]

Erika Harlacher (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)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Hits in animenewsnetwork were passing mentions—nothing biographical. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 18:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP, there's simply nothing to suggest the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing shows this dubber is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toradora!#Characters. Weak keep Erika plays a major character in this anime (Ami Kawashima) so this would be the most likely search result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking this over, I do have the Toradora! booklet that might have an interview with Erika Harlacher who plays Ami Kawashima. This source would count as secondary, as it is not about the voice actress herself. I will check into the magazines I have as well later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ami is a major character in the Toradora! series. She also voices Kurapika in Hunter x Hunter (premiered on Adult Swim this month), and Asseylum Vers Allusia in Aldnoah.Zero (broadcast on Netflix originals) which are both lead roles. So is Elizabeth Liones in The Seven Deadly Sins anime (broadcast as Netflix originals), Mimori Togo in Yuki Yuna Is a Hero. Also has supporting roles such as Mako's mom in Kill la Kill, which was run extensively on Adult Swim last year. She has 4 convention appearances according to AnimeCons [1] That's fairly strong for breaking into the English dubs of the anime industry. Easily meets WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angus. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AngusWOOF's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing a voice actor, not the characters she voices. Per WP:INHERIT, notability isn't somehow transferred from a notable character or a character from a notable series to its voice actor. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And brigaded once again. If this voice actress and her roles cited are important, where is the secondary source coverage about her and her roles? czar 00:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Twitter & Youtube would be considered primary sources as they are written by her, sources such as The Fandom Post, Anime News Network, and The Monitor in this case are secondary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Monitor is a student paper, The Fandom Post is fan blog (unreliable), and the ANN posts are not about her in any depth—her name is invoked in passing mention and there is no content about which we can write an article. Surely you can see how this makes no sense to see four keeps in a row based on even the added sourcing, no? Everything that could be said about her from these sources is already said in the corresponding media articles. czar 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cant vouch for the Monitor, but Chris Beveridge is mentioned in several printed sources, as well as having a panel at Anime Boston. [2][3] I agree that more biographical info is needed, but seeing that her major roles are verified in multiple reliable sources she would pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll scrap Monitor as that is more of just a school run blog project. But Fandom Post is reliable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Fandom Post is arguably only behind ANN as an independent online reliable source. Much of the staff were contributors to AnimeOnDvd, several have cotributed to Otaku USA and I believe ANN as well. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blog run by individuals who have once published elsewhere is not automatically reliable... (If anything, it would be as a self-published expert, which I don't believe these are.) What pedigree does this site have vis-à-vis fact-checking to make it reliable? (And mind that this is still besides the original point—that the article is now refbombed with tons of mentions yet none go into any depth about the individual.) czar 18:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted reception on her acting, so of course there will be bombs of reviews. As with film reviews, small portions would apply to the specific actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but in all of those sources, which ones are reliable+independent+secondary so as to prove her noteworthiness. Right now there's just a number of mentions and, unless I'm missing something, all of the interviews are coming from fan blogs (unreliable, used as self-published sources), meaning that no major outlet is calling her a notable figure apart from what we're splicing together here... czar 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an idea Would it be better if the article were made into a template that covers her works? I just can see nothing present when it comes to her biographical info, so why have an article about her biography? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like a navbox? There's no policy on this as I don't think it has been suggested before, but I'd oppose such a move, sorry. WP:NENAN seems to be appropriate, as well as possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Voice actors aren't actors, their prominence for your average audience is far less, and even the vast majority of actors don't have navboxes. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make sense, per WP:NAVBOX, there should be an article about the navbox's subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep, neutral essentially. More or less on the fence with this one. On one hand, her roles mean she should pass WP:ENT without too much difficulty, but on the other, you'd think such roles would land her RS coverage, but there isn't much; sources like Anime News Network often run interviews for voice actors but she has none. The only truly "good" source I see is #26, which discusses her with some detail, and that plus the number of (albeit shallow) sources available and ENT nudges me slightly to the keep side. Nevertheless, I'd be wary of using her having roles in notable anime as the sole argument for keeping, as that runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. Would like to see at least an article with Harlacher as the primary subject. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She does have interviews; they are mostly in the form of podcasts and videos. There are news articles focused on her as the primary subject but they tend to be over 80% interview. Very few news articles these days about actors talk about just the actor without some sort of interview portion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be another way of saying that few voice actors are notable. czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After a bit of a flip/flop I can see now that much work has gone into the article, she passes WP:ENT with now biographical info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has a lot of reliable sources not just from convention info, but also has several interviews and articles relating to Erika Harlacher and how she started her voice over work. So she definitely passes WP:ENT.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:INHERIT, the fact that she voices characters from notable series does not make her automatically notable. Where is the background info, the reception on her voice acting? Her own comments on the characters she voices is WP:PRIMARY. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with musicians the biography section usually has something where the artist talks about their own work, theme and inspirations. Similarly with actors and their portrayals of characters. Much is this is sourced by interview. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD we look for interviews from notable outlets as an external measure of the subject's public esteem. Doing lots of interviews with low-grade sources is more a sign of niche importance than notability for an encyclopedia. czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment requesting admin decision rather than flipflopping of a non admin closure.. Regardless of his thoughts on the article, the nominator is testing the boundries of good faith by using words like "brigaded" (further up) and accusations of bandwagoning because they aren't getting their own way. We get it, they don't think the article should be kept, but it's becoming about the nominator getting what he wants and not the merits of the arguements. The article needs improvement but it's substantially improved. I think there is an argument for keeping it for now and improving it. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can be clear about these merits of arguments, we're talking about (1) an article that exhaustively cites every minor mention of this individual yet (2) cannot cite a single reliable source that goes into any depth. The policy-backed merit for keeping is what? If she is notable, where's the coverage? czar 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe a point of dispute has been reached in the discussion that a closure of no consensus is the most appropriate course of action. Are all sources of the grade I would use in an article? Not exactly. Has a serious effort been made to improve the article with what is available? Yes. I think leaving this article age and mature might be a better option at this point. Esw01407 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NACTOR point 1 (significant roles in multiple notable productions). Also, INHERIT, on its own terms, is inapplicable here; from INHERIT: "[F]our of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances . . . ."  Rebbing  18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rebbing, yes, when the actor's role is the subject of significant coverage... czar 20:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. The guideline says a voice actress's notability is presumed when she "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable . . . productions." It doesn't say that the roles need to have had significant coverage, merely that they be "significant roles" and that the productions themselves be notable. That much appears to be satisfied in this case.  Rebbing  20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, and there's context: how "significant" are these roles when nothing has been written about them in any depth? The secondary guidelines are in service of the basic notability guidelines (note "likely to be notable" vs. "are presumed notable"). This article, as it currently stands, is exactly what you get when you string together primary sources and passing mentions. Maybe two of the article's lines about reception are even about her. ENT#1 alone is not a reason to keep this article. czar 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • My assessment is that the characters listed in the lede—Ami Kawashima (listed in § Main characters in Toradora!), Mimori Togo (listed second in its article), Asseylum Vers Allusia (main character), Elizabeth Liones (main), and Kurapika—are all major roles as contemplated by NACTOR point 1, which means that the guideline provides that it's likely our subject is notable. (You're right: the language is "likely," not "presumed.") Based on that likelihood and the article's text, my view is that the subject actually is notable, and, as notability is the only concern raised in the nomination, my recommendation is that the article ought to be kept. Clearly, we disagree on all of these points, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong: it means we have different judgment.

          By the way, the convention is to use indented bullets created with repeated asterisks (****) when replying in deletion discussions. Thank you.  Rebbing  02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          That's a very literal read. Any daily log of AfDs will show that it is not conventional to use multiple asterisk indents for single-threaded conversations. I'd wager that most editors find it hard/annoying to read. czar 05:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Seems like enough coverage to meet notability. I'm basing this on other AfD discussions which show wayy less notability but still are kept. The article needs to seriously cut down on the biography section though. NikolaiHo 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for Pete's sake, there are 62 sources and this individual has multiple credits, if any voice actor for video games is notable at all, this one clearly is. NACTOR met. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (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.