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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Lintz[edit]

Mackenzie Lintz (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)

I deleted this article as an expired PROD a couple months ago and the article's creator has just contested it on my talk page. The reason for the nomination was lack of notability. I've restored it per WP:DEPROD, but I do agree that the subject is not notable. This actress has had only one significant role, and it is relatively straightforward that one significant role in itself does not satisfy WP:NACTOR, which leaves WP:GNG. Looking at the sources out there, the entirety of coverage on her appears to be either passing mentions from sources discussing the works she's been in, or a handful of interviews that are floating around by sources that may or may not be reliable. In my opinion, the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability and has not been since the article's creation in 2013. I welcome the community's input. Swarm ♠ 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Er, maybe you should take more than a "quick peek"? Like I said, there are plenty of sources that mention her while talking about either Under the Dome or Hunger Games, but I personally am not really seeing "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Are you? If so, care to share? The actual coverage of the subject within the search results seems to be pretty minimal and insignificant. Swarm ♠ 07:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are incredibly specific as to what would establish notability for this article. After research it appears that the specific requirements--i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources, are not met. Nothing you say above represents a policy-based argument to counter my argument for deletion. Your repeated accusations of bad faith are unfounded, unbecoming, and not remotely appropriate on this project. Swarm ♠ 03:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I originally said, it appears to me that it is incredibly straightforward that WP:NACTOR is not met. There have not been multiple significant roles. There has only been one. The article itself supports this notion and there is no evidence to the contrary. Swarm ♠ 04:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not speaking for Swister in the slightest, just pointing out that your citation of NACTOR is moot because it is clearly not met. Swarm ♠ 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't look like she's had the multiple significant roles that would satisfy ENT. It looks like she's had that one role and nothing else remotely significant. Also, I did go through the google news results and I clearly explained my findings in the nomination statement. That is literally why we're here, and rather than answering to the claim I'm making or refuting it, the keep !votes are boiling down to "a google search turns up results, she's probably notable" without actually being able to demonstrate sources that would establish notability. Swarm ♠ 03:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite fine that you think she fails WP:ENT. Did you consider her fan base from Under The Dome? Or did you personally review all 600+ news results? Impressive. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need at all for sarcasm, and it's not really a matter of what I "think". ENT has specific requirements that are not meant. This is a plain and simple fact. I did in fact review the first 20 pages of results and I'm perfectly confident that I'm representing them accurately. Of course she has fans from Under the Dome, but does she have a significantly large fan base or cult following? I see no such evidence of this. You're trying to poke holes in my argument that simply aren't there. Perhaps you could directly refute the policy-based argument for deletion, rather than relying on unsubstantiated assumptions? Swarm ♠ 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this in any way address the specific, policy-based argument for deletion? Swarm ♠ 03:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTR, if this one fails at AfD, I'll be taking that article to AfD next – they are exactly analogous, and if "one big role" isn't enough to pass this one through AfD, then Alexander Koch (actor) should be similarly AfD'ed (and deleted)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do so then! If (!) you are right, "Alexander Koch" should be deleted as well... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see – it's that she's a "one-hit wonder"... For right now, put me down as Delete, and draftify/userfy – one big recent role is likely to lead to a second: a year or two in Draftspace/Userspace will tell the tale... --IJBall (contribs • talk)
I've added a little bit more (higher quality - e.g. Variety and THR) sourcing to this one. But it ultimately boils down to whether one believes that "one major role" (and not much else...) passes WP:NACTOR or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this purported "significant coverage"? You yourself admit that the sources you listed don't constitute significant coverage, so why not present a case for the significant coverage rather than list examples of the lack of significant coverage? Swarm ♠ 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

    Sources 1 and 2 are significant coverage. Sources 3 and 4 are not significant coverage. I think the combination of all four sources amounts to substantial coverage of her per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

    Cunard (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She had a lead role for 3 seasons on a MAJOR Broadcasting network (CBS), not to mention a Saturn Award nomination which i just realised i did not add to her article..will add now..award noms are quite notable..--Stemoc 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahbut: WP:NACTOR specifically requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She doesn't have that. If she were the lead on a single TV show, that might be enough to except NACTOR, but she was a supporting player on Under the Dome... Like I said, if she takes on another major role in the next couple of years, the article can always be restored. But I think NACTOR basically demands that it be moved to Draftspace for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you are reading that wrong, its not a requirement to have significant roles on TV and Films its TV and/or Films.. The likes of Leonardo di Caprio or Matt Damon didn't have TV roles, are they less notable than George Clooney who has had significant roles on both?..She was a "supporting" actor in season 1 on UtD, but she was one of the main lead in seasons 2 and 3... not to mention a major nomination for her (not for the whole cast) which is notable (we have added articles for people with no nominations). The Hunger games was a major movie (franchise) and she had speaking lines in the first movie so thats "notable films" for you..again, she went back to school thus why nothing after UtD, just because she is not acting now doesn't mean she is no longer notable...--Stemoc 09:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She had a bit part in THG. How do I know? Because it wasn't even a named role. IOW, it does not qualify as a "significant" role. So, we're back to her having just one significant role. Ergo, she fails WP:NACTOR. (I will just emphasize again that I think this article should be Userfied/Draftified, rather than outright deleted, in this case, because she may pass NACTOR in a couple of years. But Swarm is correct that she doesn't pass NACTOR now...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "reliable sources" were not missing to begin with, and notability has always been the only issue here, which brings me back to the same point that the coverage that is out there is not "significant" by any remote stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it's all very insignificant and thus it's in contrast to GNG.. Also, to address the above assertion that her role in the Hunger Games constitutes a second significant role, I just don't see how that's rooted in reality. Whether you're looking at the sources that discuss the film and/or her role in it, or whether you just watch the movie personally, that is in no way what one could consider a significant role. It's quite blatantly a minor role and not something that would satisfy what NACTOR is talking about. All that is needed to refute the argument for deletion is proof of significant coverage. For all the keep votes, no one has even been able to present a borderline case to address this. It is really not difficult to demonstrate the existence of notability according to the policy, and the fact that no one is actually able to do so is telling. Swarm ♠ 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstricken this vote, which was stricken out by Spinningspark (talk · contribs), who wrote "Striking duplicate keep".

This is not a duplicate keep.

Cunard (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: it is a duplicate keep, the user has already voted on 7 February, second bullet after the proposer, here's the diff. SpinningSpark 07:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You struck the vote of Atlantic306 (talk · contribs). The editor who voted in the diff is Stemoc (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my mistake. Permission granted to trout. SpinningSpark 14:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think people should keep this as a reference. when looking up who someone is after seeing them on TV, wiki is always the first place i go. --Jimhorts (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Davey, it is my understanding that the subject specific guidelines like WP:NACTOR are only meant to give editors a quick tool to assess whether or not a particular subject likely warrants an article, not as a definitive guide for determining notability, which, in the end, must still be met via WP:GNG if brought into question-- yes? KDS4444Talk 13:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Actors don't need to meet NACTOR and GNG .... As per WP:GNGACTOR they can meet either, As an aside for the last 3 years I also thought they needed to meet both but I found out 2 weeks ago they can meet either .... IMHO metting both is better but whatever, But yeah they should meet one or the other which in this case I think both are met anyway, –Davey2010Talk 15:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 February 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.
More