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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Danielson[edit]

Stephanie Danielson (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)

Contested prod. Minor bit part actress with no real claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion and respect for other individual opinions on here, "minor bit actress" would be someone such as an extra in a movie or television series, one time appearance in a background camera shot, etc. They're are several references confirming that this actress is a starring lead role actress in the movie "Muck" and she has been credited as a starring lead role actress in other movies as well. She is a lead actress in the movie "Snow" and it's sequels. I am requesting that the page be allowed to grow and not be deleted.--Groulsom (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Groulsom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep The page has a lot of good sources!--Wetmnt1 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Wetmnt1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note the previous two entries are made by SPA accounts who seem to have a strong interest in promoting the same small group of related articles. IMHO they are very obviously meatpuppets since both rose from dormancy at the same exact time. Ridernyc (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I reviewed this article and I feel the article seems to be in order. I can not fined any clear reason why the article should be deleted. --Scantunl (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps it's time to start a sockpuppet investigation. Ridernyc (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @ Ridernyc Have you read Wikipedia's civility policy? The term sockpuppet, meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care. It is clear from my edits and post on the original page that I have been improving this page long before you posted a delete notice on it. Before you call me a name will you provide the proof! I didn't just pop out of thin air like you have claimed. You may get this page deleted if you try hard enough but lets do it for the right reasons, so can you please explain in detail why you feel there's no notability. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• hysterical, yes I know policy please see WP:DUCK it's is blatantly obvious your actions and the actions of the others are linked. Ridernyc (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ridernyc could have handled things a little more discreetly and/or diplomatically, but it's not really against policy to voice concerns of sockpuppetry in an AfD. Basically what he's concerned about (the proof) is that you (Wetmnt1) and Groulsom have only edited Wikipedia on things concerning Danielson. Your account was the first that was created and you made the article, but you have no other edits to show that you are here to do anything other than edit about Danielson. Where the concern with sockpuppetry comes in is that Groulsom's account was created a few days after the article was proposed for deletion and they removed the tag. Since the two of you have only made edits concerning this one article, it's a reasonable assumption to suspect that you are either the same person or that you are people that have contact with one another off of Wikipedia that are editing the article. Now if you're sockpuppets (ie, one person) then that's a block straight out of the gate if a check shows that you are the same person (there are ways to check for this). However if you are different people then there may be a little wiggle room here. If you were both asked to come here and edit the article then all you have to do is state up front that the two of you knew each other off Wikipedia and/or were asked by someone (Danielson, her representative) to create the article. Now if you were asked to create the article (like if you were part of a PR or freelance job) then you will also need to state this up front. You can still edit if you have a conflict of interest, but you absolutely must be transparent about this. The same thing goes for if you are part of a group trying to edit a page. You can be blocked for meatpuppetry but this sort of block usually ends up getting made because the accounts were just there to stuff ballots rather than to try to get a concentrated effort to genuinely improve a page based on policy and learn to edit based on policy. In most cases a "meatpuppet" will not argue for a keep based on policy and will not try to learn these policies enough to try to genuinely improve the article. (IE, they'll try to twist policy around based on a small criteria despite several editors saying otherwise.) There's a lot more to it than this and this is already too long as it is, but basically at this point the best thing to do is to be transparent about everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What you need to here is show how Danielson's roles are notable. Minor parts are pretty much considered to be any role that is not a main character and has not received coverage in reliable sources. For example, if someone played a character that was not in a large portion of the film and is not mentioned in reviews for the movie (other than a routine listing of cast) then that will not show notability. Be careful about using news sources that were fairly heavily based on press releases since those tend to be greatly depreciated at AfD. Primary sources (things released by Danielson, a crew member, or anyone affiliated with her or the films she was in) will not give notability either. (WP:PRIMARY) You need sources that discuss Danielson in depth and reviews that will mention her performance. If she was a minor character (like a character that dies 20 minutes into the film) but gets a mention in a review then that would still help show notability. However be careful- if a film is not notable on Wikipedia then these roles probably won't do anything at all even if she was a main character. Basically just being in a film is not enough to show notability- you have to show that these appearances are notable with coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should be added here is this is just one of several articles I have discovered all related to Benetone Hillin Entertainment, all created by a small group of SPAs and the ones that fail the GNG all have similar things happening at AFD [1]. I think the this might be the tip of a much much larger iceberg. Ridernyc (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tokogirl79, Thank you for your input on here, it's very much appreciated. I understand his concern, but I am not affiliated with anyone on here or the actress. I am not involved in some large conspiracy network like Rydernyc has suggested. Thanks again for improving the article. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

may we ask what your inspiration to register and create this article was? Ridernyc (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. My media sweeps did not find much of what could be considered sources, although what I find interesting is the rather substantial pageviews counts (about a hundred a day), plus lots of image consistency (reasoning: when lots of images are of the same person, it is a sign that they're in the public eye) -- my unofficial tests of notability of course (which she passes), so I am somewhat on the fence. Wikipedia's tests of notability, well, I did not see much in terms of in-depth sources, independent, just mentions of her performances here and there. So the current article is mostly unsourced. So I am leaning to delete, could be persuaded if better sources are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - don't see much notability here. What am I missing? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Please see below. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability or of significant roles, does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I still don't see any reason for notability, and no changes to the article since April 25th. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - YouTube videos and unreliable sources do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (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.