Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melinda Hill

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 move to Draft space. Dkendr is correct, this discussion has gone on long enough, I don't see another relist as giving us much more. The consensus is that at this time, the subject doesn't meet notability criteria, however there is potential. So move to draft space it is. I suggest using the Articles for Creation process to get assistance in improvement there. The page can now be found at Draft:Melinda Hill. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hill

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

The subject is short of Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:ENTERTAINER) and essentially received an extra degree of attention after a game show appearance - article would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on said game show. Article is being used by sock puppet of article subject for promotion. Relevant content being removed by said sock puppet. Dkendr (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC), updated Dkendr (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've completed this nomination and added the rationale, based on Dkendr's edit summary[1]. They are, of course, invited to expand on their rationale. Other options (protection?) might be useful if a sockfarm is indeed at work. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with this wikipedia page and it should not be deleted. All info is cited and referenced correctly. (Example: http://tangledwebwewatch.com/2013/07/17/stephs-la-weekly-feature-series-melinda-hills-romantic-encounters/) Content has been removed wherein it is libelous and untrue vandalism. It is within the acceptable guidelines and standards of wikipedia to remove such content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion This statement is incorrect vandalism: "Hill's America's Got Talent appearance was notable for her complete failure. She bombed so thoroughly that the judges were not even motivated to activate their buzzers to end her set early.[11]" Statement is not factual and is meant to cyber-bully a living person with inaccurate and undocumented slander. No judge on America's Got Talent has ever been "unmotivated to activate a buzzer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.24.252 (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the complete failure line - this is a BLP, after all. As for the rest? Look, you and Dkendr have gone back and forth on this article for more than a week now, getting nowhere - and all while coming dangerously close to an edit war. Let's see if the AFD gets more eyes on the article, and perhaps we can get some of these problems sorted one way or the other. The first step should really have been the talk page, but this works as well. So, @Dkendr:, how's about you and this IP editor stop reverting the article and see what other editors think? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{I also marked your comment as a keep, since you say the article should be kept. This is for the benefit of the closing admin. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Ultraexactzz: Wikipedia is about community consensus so whatever that may be I will of course abide. Dkendr (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz: I will agree to that and thank you very much for your help and suggestion this morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.24.252 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (iVote is nomination -- Jreferee (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) : Subject fails the notability test, page patrolled by a sock puppet. I do want to add that I put a "delete for notability" tag on the page... and it was deleted with no supporting edits... Dkendr (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep : By most metrics I question the "notability" of someone with such low-level (online videos, podcasts, uncredited appearances, etc.) show biz accomplishments, and yet the subject appears to meet wikipedia's much more lax notability standards by providing references that indicate some degree of independent press coverage, even though that press (online interviews and free "alternative" weekly entertainment guides) strikes me as borderline non-trivial. Certainly wikipedia has allowed notability status for pages that have provided less back up, so why should this page be any different? Let it stay ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

weak delete: Technically it fail entertainer notability criteria. At first glance does seem to have a diverse and active career, however in reality they all look like bit parts/extra roles. If result is keep, page has COI and neutrality issues that need addressing (ideally keeping overly enthusiastic editors away from making wholesale changes to whatever remains of the article). Rayman60 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an Adventure Time fan I enjoy reading about the career trajectories of the cast. I only wish this page had more information about Melinda's work on Adventure Time and could clear up the certain conspiracy theories about her character Doctor Princess, one of my all time favorite characters.CelebFan (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — CelebFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I call sock puppet on this user. Account created Nov. 26, 2015, with no other edits in its portfolio. CelebFan of course is permitted to create a page about AdventureTime, but should be reminded that Wikipedia is not the place for fan fiction. Dkendr (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How is this even up for discussion? The statement above is completely false: "essentially received an extra degree of attention after a game show appearance - article would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on said game show. Article is being used by sock puppet of article subject for promotion. Relevant content being removed by said sock puppet." { Melinda Hill has never appeared on any game shows, according to google. I am a fan of her stand up comedy and her appearances on several network and cable TV shows. She also hosted a TV series called Comedy.TV which is still airing over the world and we watch it frequently here in Chicago.EdwardEditHands (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — EdwardEditHands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Melinda Hill was a contestant on America's Got Talent, which is a game show. I call sock puppet on this one too; the account was created on Nov. 28, 2015, same date as this posting, with no other edits in its portfolio. Dkendr (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable performer, talented, she appeared on the Craig Ferguson show. My unofficial test of pageviews is averaging about 30/40 per day, sometimes spiking, here, and while of course it is unofficial, for me it usually is an indication of notability. Some coverage here, but sources in article now, such as this ind-depth one, and this one suggest she meets the WP:GNG although admittedly there is a much extra junk in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Talented" is subjective. The "Secretariat" character was on Ferguson more often, should it have a page? If she is notable for hosting a show then the show might qualify and this article could be included in it. Dkendr (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The "Secretariat" character from Ferguson does in fact have its own paragraph in the main Craig Ferguson show article. Dkendr (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as a standalone biography article since the topic Melinda Hill has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (see nutshell at Wikipedia:Notability (people)). That is, there are not enough reliable secondary sources, independent of the topic, to written an account of Melinda Hill's life. While the article includes basic facts regarding her career, the Wikipedia article does not include life events or even portray her experience of these life events since none of the Wikipedia reliable secondary sources cover such information. As such, the topic cannot be maintained as a biography and should be deleted. The information would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on the game show -- Jreferee (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once blogs are excluded, there is almost no coverage of this person. Appearance on a single game show is definitely below the (very low) GNG threshold, and the existence of blogs discussing that same game show does not confer notability. If this person receives more coverage then reliable sources will emerge; for now it is at best WP:TOOSOON. Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps draft and userfy so delete for now as there may be enough coverage for even a marginally acceptable article but there could be better coverage and I'm seeing that so far so drafting and userfy may beneficial for a future article. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apart from the original editor and what could easily be a bit of sockpuppetry, there don't seem to be any reasons to keep this article. Userfying and waiting for new sources is however not unreasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be the fairest approach to retaining the content for future revival if warranted and maintaining notability policy. Dkendr (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. There are a lot of trivial mentions, local news and event listings used as sources here. Of note: if you go to the articles on the works she's done where she was not cast as "herself", almost none have her name in the article. If anything (and this is a stretch) she may be encyclopedic for her two shows, but there's little of encyclopedic value here beyond that. That's not to say she's not talented, I'm sure she is, but Wikipedia is not IMDb. I would suggest redirecting to one of the articles but I can't determine which, so search results would be better. No prejudice against moving to draft space if someone wants to work on it, but frankly I don't think there's any merit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied Page

I have userfied this page to preserve its content in case of a notability change or the content becomes usable in a wider-scoped article. This does not constitute "cyber bullying" in any way. Dkendr (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkendr: you should not have done that, and you did it improperly. I have asked at WP:ANI to have this move reverted. Please at least wait for this discussion to close before you act on how you interpret the result, and then please ask for help if the page needs to be moved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back. Dkendr, please do not move the page in that manner. The closing Admin will move the page to userspace if appropriate.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my enthusiasm but I'm wondering how long the debate will be allowed to drag on? Dkendr (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dkendr Well, considering this has been relisted twice, it may end soon unless someone wants to relist a third time. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 14 December 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.