Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Overton (actress)

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. Non-admin closure. JulesH (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Overton (actress)[edit]

No evidence of notability. She did not debut in the "The Graduate" on Broadway, the best I can find is that she was an understudy for one role. Notability based on the possibility of success in a small role in a film not yet released and a few minor guest spots on TV (according to IMDB) but not noted in the article doesn't establish notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,but I suggest you check your sources again. At the official website of Broadway, it is explicitly stated that she replaced Alicia Silverstone in 'The Graduate'. --Roaring Siren (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't incumbent upon me to go hunting to sources to determine what role it was, it is the responsibility of the person who wrote it - that was you, was it not? The article has no sources whatsoever to allow a reviewer to check content, which is essential to establishing notability. Meanwhile, Broadway.com is not the "official website of Broadway" in any way. Rather than suggest I go hunt proof of notability, I tagged the article that notability wasn't established. Nothing was done, so it has been nominated for deletion. Rather than post a "sorry" here and a request for help from the Rescue Squad, perhaps it would be better for the article to invest some effort into introducing sourcing and establishing the notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep missing the point here. It is a common practise that if you suspect the authenticity of the material in wikipedia, you search for it online. However, in your edits, not only you seem to blatantly wrong information (" She did not debut in the "The Graduate" on Broadway,")for which I'm sure you had not bothered to look it up online. And for your information, if you had taken the liberty of visiting the Broadway page on wikipedia, the official website points towards the same website which I had quoted with the article about Overton's debut. And that was a rather foolish question on your part, yeah it's me who created the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not missing the point. It is common practice to support additions to the project with verifiable sourcing when you add it. You wrote an article with no citations, making claims of notability that aren't supported by sourcing. It was your responsibility to ensure that notability was verified. I still notice you've spent more time on the deletion request than on actually fixing the issues on the article since the nomination. And no, the Broadway (theatre) article does not point to Broadway.com as an "official website". That is not a possible concept, since Broadway theatre is a wide concept and not an official organization. It is one of many external links at the end which cover a variety of topics related to it. A more reliable source (IBDB) says she started in the show in a very minor role before stepping in, so she didn't debut as Elaine Robinson, which is an assertion the article makes which is untrue. The article overstates her prominence more than once. I'm not going to argue with you about this back and forth. You created it, make it comply with notability with sources that are considered reliable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, do you really think Broadway.com ,(and not Broadwayfan.com) would be publishing false info ? A quick google search reveals many sources including [1] ,TV.com and here(under the stage appearences tag) confirm what was previously stated .--Roaring Siren (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor guest spots? Looks like 28 separate shows & films spanning almost 10 years (4 of those in 2008) including 17 episodes on one soap opera. Raitchison (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - And expand, looking at her IMDB page and checking a couple there is way more than enough to her acting career to support notability. A better sample of her career needs to be included in the article. Admittedly not sure why this was AfD'd as it's issues are easily fixed there is no need to delete. Raitchison (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep Quite a number of minor roles, and two very local awards. Thats what it boils down to after all the rhetoric above. What side of the dividing line this falls is hard to sayDGG (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would give her the benefit of the doubt as to notability as an actress. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of keeps. Come on guys... expanding and sourcing was a snap. Not only is she notable for her past and present acting, but she is also notable for her directing. The sources were easy to find. The article is still tagged for WP:RESCUE, but it is now a keeper and worthy of further expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw deletion - This was originally submitted because the article as it stood did not support the notability of the person and had no cites to back what it claimed. Since the article has had effort put into it by several editors other than the creator, largely the efforts of MichaelQSchmidt, the article now does support its assertion of notability. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2009 (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.