Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mollie Milligan (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 no consensus‎. Sandstein 06:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Milligan

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Texas. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire career seems to be bit parts, lots of hits in Gsearch, only confirming the one-off or minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion hinged around her role in the "Spit on your Grave" movie; ok fine, but she doesn't seem to have done much either before or since, so it's still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The biography qualifies under WP:ENT because of the films she produced/coproduced, acted in, as well as was an executive producer for. NOTE: There are many additions of cited information as well as more complete information since this was last voted on. Starlighsky (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2023
Delete WP:ENT is only a guideline and is superseded if there are no sources. I waded through 10 pages of Google results without seeing anything substantial - with most actors/creatives with significant film roles you'd expect some press coverage at least from local/regional media, but not seeing anything reliable even below the required quantity. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ENT and largely per Onel5969's contribution to the previous AFD, which does not seem to have been successfully refuted. We seem to have significant, verified roles in at least three notable films: I Spit on Your Grave (2010 film), The Gray Man (2007 film), and Three Days in August. (As to WP:ENT being only a guideline, I feel compelled to note that the WP:GNG is also only a guideline, and the GNG and SNGs are on an equal footing in affording only a presumption of notability.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visviva: My vote below does not directly address what Onel said, but it is relevant; with both WP:GNG and WP:ENT being "only" guidelines, I think there's room to say that the subject technically meets the requirements of WP:ENT but still isn't notable due to a lack of good sources.

Even if we want to stick to the WP:ENT's wording really precisely, we can still find that wiggle-room: "may be considered notable" quite explicitly allows for diverting from the SNG's notability threshold when appropriate. Onel's ENT argument is fundamentally sound (though I like "significance" of roles to be established through reliable reporting, not OR), but ENT is not the end-all notability threshold, and I think we can reasonably divert from it here. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When sourcing clearly isn’t there then presumptions of notability from SNGs carry less weight then the GNG fail. This is a BLP and should be assessed against the need for high quality sources. These appear not to exist and this person is marginal at the very best. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The purpose of most SNGs is to provide an outline for when it can be reasonably presumed that significant coverage of a subject exists; fulfilling an SNG does not have to mean that a subject is notable with definitive certainty, it's just highly likely. Thus the generally more malleable wording of those guidelines – "presumed notable" is common. In the case of WP:NACTOR, the subject "may be considered notable" if they meet the relevant criteria, but as has been mentioned above, this probability is superseded by the lack of detailed reporting in appropriate sources. After all, the purpose of notability is in part to ensure that articles can comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, amongst others. Although BLPs don't have higher notability requirements per se, given the need for high-quality sources in writing a WP:BLP, and the lack thereof here, I think it's fair to say that notability requirements are not fulfilled. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion you're entitled to have, but I'll state for the record that I don't think it is supported by the relevant guidelines. To quote the opening of the GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when ... (emphasis in original). That's exactly the same language you quote as being "more malleable". The hard boundary around notability is given by WP:V#Notability: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Within that boundary, the actual text of almost every notability guideline is carefully flexible, as it should be, because the question of whether a freestanding article serves our encyclopedia in a particular case is always going to involve many different considerations. Sourcing is important, but so is (verifiable) encyclopedic significance as embodied in various SNGs including ENT. We should be careful to avoid the trap of giving the PAGs a meaning that an ordinary user would not give them. Doing so is harmful on many levels, but particularly because it damages our standing as a community that is open and welcoming to newcomers. -- Visviva (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability guideline WP:ENT is met per Visviva's reference of Onel5969. Note that Three Days in August was indeed released so the case has become more clear than before. —siro χ o 08:55, 21 July 2023 (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.