Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Specht (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Melanie Specht}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melanie_Specht_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Melanie Specht}})

Going again at this AfD because I still don't see how she has her own page.

• She fails WP:ENTERTAINER, has done nothing of note, all small roles, most of them nameless such as "Receptionist", "Nurse", "Burger Chick".
• She fails WP:GNG, I can't find any significant coverage on her. She has the one ENSTARZ article and the howtobearedhead could be a weak pass for coverage but two sources. Two. Hardly significant when she fails WP:NACTOR. The Mens Health is a mere mention and 2 sentences about her, nothing significant. Starpulse.com is not a reliable source and the New York Times list 4 credits, that's it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

::Fine. Can you respond the following which I have raised in the 1st Nomination by you?

::She doesn't or she hasn't any of those to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER as you suggest; can you explain then why;

::Michael Bay selected her in the multi-million dollar project?

:::Where is the source that says he hand picked her for Transformers? And even with the source, you could say that about anyone he has ever hand picked, just because Michael Bay chose her, doesn't make her notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Fine, Michael Bay may not have hand picked her but someone else or he himself might be. Though it is not necessarily Michael Bay hand picked one should be popular but all those who act in the film have got Wikipedia pages; I have seen this movie. What is the rationale for Melanie is not qualified for a Wikipedia page? Is she a black sheep among others?Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::So why even say that Michael Bay chose her when you can't even back up that he did? Just because she was in a popular movie, doesn't automatically make her notable, I think that's what you are confused about. Notable people need to have significant coverage to verify their career and background, otherwise, they don't need their own article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::Please refer the "Note to the Closing Admin".Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::Why Men's Health (magazine), the world's largest men's magazine brand, with 40 editions in 47 countries and the the best-selling men's magazine on U.S. newsstands, compared her with other Notable celebrities?

:::Just because a notable magazine posted 2 sentences about her, doesn't make her notable. Sage Erickson and Holly Sonders on that list and don't have their own article. Just because they are on the list doesn't automatically make them notable. See WP:GNG "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::::It is not those two sentences but their comparison with other notable celebrities make her Notable. Sage Erickson and Holly Sonders are notable, but we don't have enough volunteer editors to create their pages only Wikipedia. See the Google News of [https://www.google.lk/search?q=Sage+Erickson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=zmRHVfj0O4eqgwS334DwAQ#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=nws&q=%22Sage+Erickson%22 Sage Erickson] and [https://www.google.lk/search?q=Holly+Sonders&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=FGVHVfX2NYShgwSx54HQAQ#q=%22Holly+Sonders%22&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=nws&start=0 Holly Sonders]; hope you will agree with me.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::You can't use the arguments that celebrity X is notable because celebrity Y is notable for being in the same article. That makes no sense. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::Please refer the "Note to the Closing Admin".Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::If you couldn't answer properly, then she may meet at least one of those you have highlighted, but we are not aware of it.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Simply not notable at this time, not a single significant or in-depth source despite multiple searches. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

::You too can respond on the questions which I have raised above.Thanks.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to the Closing Admin

:The nominator has previously nominated two articles but the results were "Keep";

:Please see the discussions below;

:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David After Dentist (2nd nomination)

:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Bit My Finger

:It is pointless arguing with him; I won't do so.

:He has removed two sources and the content just before the discussion on the grounds they are unreliable.

:I doubt his overall credibility over the deletion nomination of this article.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::"He" would be a "she", hence the name Lady Lotus. I've also nominated dozens of other articles that were resulted in "Deletes" so I don't see the point of you bringing up ones from keep. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:::These two articles are your recent deletion nominations and there is not a single delete vote in both articles; that shows your poor judgment of the nomination and your state of current mindset. I think, your nomination of this article also out of unqualified judgement. We will be only wasting our time discussing with you.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:::: See WP:ADHOM, you are making an ad hominem claim. Just because there were no delete votes on the nominator's last AfDs doesn't invalidate the argument for deletion and mentioning it is dilatory. Esquivalience ^t 20:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Unremarkable woman who does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::— Inother (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I had to check which topic this was again. One of last year's "hot" women. Did she finish 9th or 99th (it doesn't seem to say)? Are you seriously suggesting I spend my time on Wikipedia editing "Hottest Women"? Laughable (and anyone can check that). --Inother (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::The account is a clear spa; it was started on 17th March 2015 and participating deletion discussions out of proportion to its contributions and casting everywhere just "Delete" votes, no quality justifications for those deletes.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::The user has been editing for 2 months with nearly 300 edits, they have edited Eduardo Galeano, Portal:2010s/Intro, Portal:Current events/2015 March 30, Michael Murphy, St Joseph's Industrial School, Clonmel, Questions and Answers (TV series), Maithripala Sirisena, Nigerian general election, 2015, Blockupy movement, among others. There are tons of editors who edit blocks of AfD's. Look up WP:SPATG. You are trying to discredit anyone who votes to delete this page. And {{u|Inother}} is right, she doesn't meet WP:BIO so their argument is certainly valid. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::Still those contributions are out of proportion to his/her monotonous deletion votes; let him come out with his/her own rationale rather than you protect him.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::Please respond why your Two recent nominations might not have drawn a single "Delete" vote.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, you stated and I quote "We will be only wasting our time discussing with you." so with that, I am done discussing anything further with you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::Though I agree with you some extent, but still you are in discussion with me on other editor's discussion.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete fails notability with only a brief Men's Health mention, a few listings in The New York Times, and an "Enstarz" article (which I'm not entirely sure is reliable). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

::Are you still not sure a news media with [http://www.enstarz.com/contact-us these detail] is not reliable? Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd say that enstarz.com is probably reliable, given that it has a listed editorial department. However, overall coverage in reliable sources is sparse. The NYT citation is from Baseline, a licensed database. It's not an article by the NYT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Per Chandana. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• {{u|Yogesh Khandke}} could you be more specific as Chandana hasn't exactly brought up any points to claim her notability LADY LOTUS • TALK 09:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• He has, also please check this[https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Melanie+Specht%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=cr&ei=LIBRVbGGO83GuASxgoGYCg] notable enough. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• {{u|Yogesh Khandke}}, we have actually already discussed those sources, the Westside Today article is about her lawsuit, not her career, can't make an article out of that. And the Moviehole, seibertron.com and Starpulse.com sources are not considered reliable. So if that's your only reasoning for keep, I would suggest you reconsider your vote. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::Better you read your first deletion nomination, you will get many specific points of mine.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've been asked to come in to weigh in on some of the comments here. Offhand here's my statement on things: while Inother has predominantly only contributed to AfDs, that does not make him or her a SPA. The thing about the term "SPA" is that this is most frequently used to describe someone who has a very specific agenda, which usually means that they were brought in to vote in a very specific manner. Most of the time this term is used to describe sockpuppets or meatpuppets that were created for one specific AfD. Offhand I can't see where Inother would fall within the most common use of this term and because of this, I would recommend against using the term to describe them because the term doesn't fit this specific person.

:Now when it comes to things like appearances in men's magazines, the general consensus is that these sort of things don't really count as notability giving sources because the coverage is usually very brief and mostly consists of a few sentences along with a photograph of the woman in question. It all depends on the article in question- sometimes coverage from these magazines can be used but in this case it'd essentially be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source since the mention (#96) is all of 2 sentences long. As far as claims about her being hand picked by Michael Bay, unless you can back that up with a RS you can't include it in the article. It's also not exactly a claim for notability even if she was, since being picked for a film doesn't automatically mean that the person is notable. If they end up receiving coverage as a result of their film role then that would show notability, as would coverage about the film role if the role in question is a major one. This last part is something to take into consideration since films can have a lot of minor roles that get little to no screen time. The rule of thumb is to look at what the actor's part is titled- if they were not given a name and were only labeled as a position (ie, "Nurse", "Receptionist", or "Senior Executive Assistant") then the role is considered minor and not one that would give notability regardless of how popular the film becomes.

:Now as far as the nominator's past AfD nominations go, I will agree that these two YT videos were notable. However at the same time that does not mean that the AfDs were made in bad faith or that she was wrong with this specific AfD nomination. I will note that she has also made other nominations that were not kept and that she has also made accurate votes at other AfDs. It's not a perfect AfD history (very few of us have one), but there's nothing in there that would cause any true immediate alarm. Even if there was I can still see where her concern was with this article. In this instance I'd recommend against commenting about Lotus's past editing history and instead look for more coverage in reliable sources. Right now the coverage is insanely light and the only real source of note is Enstarz, which offhand looks to be usable since it does have an editorial process. One source is not enough to show notability in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

::Reply:

::Though I appreciate the time you have taken to study the subject and then comment on it, I afraid whether you are violating Wikipedia:Canvassing. Requesting someone's talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokyogirl79&diff=661238131&oldid=661202891], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokyogirl79&diff=661391912&oldid=661391585], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokyogirl79&diff=661406048&oldid=661400828] in a tone could be considered applying undue influence over the editors.

::Though you are trying to balance, your comment is some extent biased. You are trying to protect Lotus. Since you are an administrator you should be more cautious. If I am wrong, I will take this issue to clear at a WP:RFC.

::Lotus has requested with same tone[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SNUGGUMS&diff=661238243&oldid=661167292], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SNUGGUMS&diff=661243857&oldid=661238243] at User:SNUGGUMS's talk page and he has voted "Delete".

::If some one wants to attract others opinion either she/he should have used 3rd Opinion or Rfc or talk pages in a neutral tone.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I did not canvass anyone. I asked Snuggums to take a look at the page because he has done some of my reviews for GA and has made comments on my FL nominations so I trust his judgement and his opinion. I also asked Tokyo to "simmer" the situation as she is an admin and works frequently on AfD's and I knew that you were out of line with calling Inother an SPA. I don't need anyones protection. So far, you haven't been able to bring up any good points to give Ms. Specht any kind of notability. Your points were countered and you had nothing to respond with. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Hardly people accept their mistakes and you too. You can't be at the same time a lawyer and the judge.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

::::*I wouldn't say I was canvassed since I was only asked to come in here and try to cool things down. I wasn't asked to vote, which is what canvassing ultimately is considered to be. I'll be completely honest: you're being more than a little aggressive in how you're going after every person who disagrees with your opinion. You've said your piece and it's clear that you want to keep the article, but I'd recommend that you walk away from this AfD. Right now what you're doing is not only borderline harassment of any disagreeing editor (and most certainly Lotus) but absolutely bad faith assumptions on your part. I would highly, highly recommend that you take a break from this AfD. You're not helping your case in the slightest at this point because you're putting a lot of people automatically on the defensive when they come to this AfD since they're going to assume that you're going to automatically go after them if they say anything other than a keep- which seems to be pretty well founded since you did just that with Davey. If this continues then it would be well within Lotus's rights to escalate this to ANI, where you can run the risk of getting temporarily blocked for harassment if you don't back down. I need to repeat this: please walk away from the AfD. At this point all you're doing is harassing each new person who comes in here and some of your assumptions against Lotus can be seen as personal attacks. You're not going to gain any points here by trying to demolish Lotus's credibility (she's been on here for 6 years and other than a few hiccups, has a rather impressive edit history). I'd say the same thing here if the positions had been reversed and it was you that had opened the AfD. I'm formally asking you to stop and walk away from this AfD for the time being. There's nothing more you can say here that you haven't already said and right now you're just resorting to assuming bad faith. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::I have already decided to walk away. I have actually started my Wikipedia contributions in 2005 and closely worked with a number of ArbCom members on highly sensitive geopolitical issues globally here on Wikipedia. I retired on personal reasons and resumed just to contribute on light subjects since I am used to this place. My intention is not harassing others but to keep this article for some time until it gets enough WP:RS at an appropriate time.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::*However the issue here is that her notability has to be established in the here and now because saying that sources may eventually become available is essentially crystal balling. We can't keep an article on the basis that they may become more notable one day. It's possible that she might gain more notability but it's equally possible that she could sink into obscurity after this. The acting world is pretty harsh like that- sometimes the most promising people can seem like they'll make it big and start gaining a little buzz, only for them to never break through that barrier and distinguish themselves against the other, similar actors. Notability guidelines have also become increasingly more strict over the years to where things that may have passed years ago would not pass guidelines now- the AfD history is full of articles that previously passed notability guidelines at prior AfDs but ended up becoming deleted after guidelines were made more strict. At most all that can be done here is that the article could be userfied. If she'd played a more major role in something we could maybe justify redirecting her article with history to something she's more known for, but she hasn't performed any major roles. At best she's known for a minor one episode role in The Ex List, which was cancelled mid-season. If the 5 Minute Sketch Show had an article that asserted notability I'd support a redirect there, but I can't really see where it'd pass notability guidelines as a whole. Typically when something is redirected it'd be for something like a major role or at least a very visible role that gets more frequently commented on and would be included in a film cast list. The last AfD for this really shouldn't have closed on a keep and should at the very least have gone on for another week- the sourcing we have now in the article is essentially the same as the last AfD a few months ago and it's very, very weak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for your suggestion. I have userfied the article.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as sources listed are pretty crappy and I can't find anything on her on Google or Highbeam, fails NACTOR and GNG - Also I'd like to point out {{u|Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka)}} that just because {{u|Lady Lotus}} had 2 AFDs kept doesn't mean we should keep this - Every nominator here has had AFDs kept and then others deleted after - So to use her last 2 AFDs as a way of keeping this is not only Assuming bad-faith but also quite frankly absurd!. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

::You may be right, but for that you don't need to "delete" outright; there is a {{Notability} tag there.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Notability tags can stay from 1 month to 7 years so tagging it is IMHO pointless, If there's no evidence of notability it should be deleted like any other article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Agreed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:BASIC:

1. [http://www.enstarz.com/articles/33987/20140224/transformers-4-age-of-extinction-melanie-specht-talks-working-with-michael-bay-and-stanley-tucci.htm] - reliability questionable. Also trivial.
2. [http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/hottest-women-2014] - a few sentences on a person is not significant coverage.
3. [http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/1429940/Melanie-Specht] - not coverage at all, just an information page aggregated from other automatically-generated sources.
4. [http://www.starpulse.com/news/Alan_Danzis/2014/02/25/melanie_specht_on_playing_the_grande_d] - significant coverage, but questionable source.
5. [http://westsidetoday.com/2015/03/03/actress-melanie-specht-sues-ricoh-americas-corp/] - an article on a lawsuit is not coverage on the subject, it's on the lawsuit.

- Esquivalience ^t 20:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NACTOR. All I'm seeing are bit part roles, with little speaking (if any). Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. The NYT page seems like nothing more than IMDb and provides no coverage. While she has appeared in notable shows and notable films, NACTOR explicitly requires multiple significant roles. Disclaimer: I was told about this AfD by email presumably based on my involvement in some of Lady Lotus's other nominated AfDs. The message was neutral, (though not as transparent as I would like) and did not pressure me nor imply that I should vote one way or another. (Edit 21:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC): As I see canvassing has already been brought up here, I should clarify that it was not sent by Lady Lotus.) ― Padenton|✉   21:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:BIO. There are a couple sources, but they don't look to be terribly good publications/website (smelling of promotional/paid content, though I'm not sure). I was also contacted by email to !vote, presumably because I participated in the other "note to the closing admin" AfDs. If you have a concern with {{u|Lady Lotus}}'s competence as nominator, that's something to bring up at e.g. WP:ANI rather than to include as part of the reason to keep here. As far as I'm concerned, everybody's allowed some mistakes (or, more specifically, judgment that sometimes diverges from consensus). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that both {{u|Rhododendrites|you}} and {{u|Padenton}} were emailed by Chandana because they probably figured you would !vote "keep" since you both voted keep on my last AfD's. Ironic since I was accused of canvassing by Chandana. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Probably not, I've been seeing these two editors voting at AfD recently. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom (even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day) and {{U|Rhododendrites}}. In addition, I wish to note how difficult it can be to decide deletion when (a) there are lots of blogs and model shots of a B film actor, and when (b) we sometimes keep actors whose major role was something minor along the lines of "Rollover Mom" or "Waitress at the diner in Easy Rider". Any attractive actor who's had any roles on TV or film will inevitably get some attention in blogs or film reviews. But they often fail our basic rule of notability. In this case, I can't see how she'd pass that nor the more specific acting rule. I won't scream if this is kept. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

: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.