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. ✗plicit 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Just not seeing WP:SIGCOV here, she's obviously appeared in quite a few films, television shows and video games, but I am just not seeing how we can write an article on her based on the current sources. a WP:BEFORE search did not turn up anything substantial. I am aware of the current drama and this AfD is not intended to distress the BLP subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the nomination, but the timing sure is a bit awkward. Perhaps it could be revisited some months from now when it couldn't be mistaken as an accidental referendum on the current drama? ApLundell (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has had significant roles on multiple notable shows. 40 episodes of Sealab 2021. Half the episodes of Frisky Dingo. She meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors. WP:ENTERTAINER #1. Dream Focus 07:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are several possibly notable people called Kate Miller, but the subject of this article does not appear to be one of them. Having a few bit-parts in TV programmes that some people might have watched does not in itself make a person notable. IMDB has a list of her parts. I gather from WP:ANI that the subject of this article is a significant contributor to the page.^[1]-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - specifically "I said something about my publicist contacting Google to get this Wikipedia page off my feed when people google me like casting directors and producers for potential work and finding wrong information". The article has caused the subject stress due to incorrect information and she has claimed it has harmed her career, which is the direct opposite to the principles set out in WP:BLP. No prejudice against reappropriating as a redirect to John DiMaggio#Personal life or Kate Miller-Heidke. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  She doesn't want her age mentioned, since casting people discriminate. You just erase her age and block IP addresses from editing it, and it'd be fine. Dream Focus 10:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia articles are not meant to help her get work. If stuff like her age is too sensitive, then best delete the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - topic may technically meet WP:ENT, but I agree with Ritchie333 and Toddy1. The topic is marginally notable at best, the article seems to be a negative to the subject per BLPREQUESTDELETE, and therefore it is in the best interests of this encyclopedia to remove the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's really unfortunate the way this article ended up at AfD (per ANI thread), however I agree with the nom that there is not enough WP:SIGCOV on her to pass WP:GNG. The current sourcing is weak: a twitter message, a few mentions on blogs/fan sites, an interview and short mention (4 sentences) in Broadway World. I couldn't find anything in-depth online, perhaps its WP:TOOSOON. BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:PROMO also applies. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I asked her and she does NOT want her article deleted. User_talk:Dorierosie#Do_you_want_your_article_deleted? She just wants accurate information. Dream Focus 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what the person themselves want. If there are no sources to support significant coverage, we don't keep it. If the person knows of coverage missing from reliable sources, they could provide that to help, but that's about as far as they can help. --Masem (t) 23:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to the BLPREQUESTDELETE votes, rather than as an argument the article should be kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably best to merge with John DiMaggio; sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV at present. Obviously this can change if more information is published during her career but for now I'm not satisfied notability it met. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ignoring the BLPREQUESTDELETE aspect, the subject does not appear notable. The point of WP:ENT is meant to be to predict GNG likelihood (as affirmed in the deprecation discussion for ENT #2). It's more useful to rely on at time of article creation than at AfD. Considering the sources themselves, there's not really an indication of notability here. The article subject suggested we use IMDb or their personal website, neither of which are acceptable reliable sources. A policy-compliant article can't be written, hence the concerns from the article subject about incorrect information being added, but we can't really do so much better without proper sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No SIGCOV.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it ain't passing the GNG bar. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question OSE and all that, but what is the actual consensus on voice actors? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Hymes closed as keep (and I agree that the close reflected consensus) and she has a much thinner claim to notability than Miller. My original inclination here after reviewing the sources and history was to !vote delete, but if Hymes is notable, Miller likely is too. I'm torn Star Mississippi 19:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an absolute boilerplate example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. If the other article in question has less claim to notability then a keep result there was likely wrong, but should not impact this nomination or any other. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that it shouldn't, but I wondered if it showed a changing consensus, or as you, Hemiauchenia alluded to, a less than ideal AfD. Having differing consensus in six months surprised me. Star Mississippi 22:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It can also be a matter of who is present each time; I would have argued for deletion on that one on SIGCOV grounds just as here, but wasn't a participant, likewise if I hadn't seen this one then there would similarly be a voice for deletion not present. Sometimes it's more luck than judgement which way a listing turns out. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Laurie Hymes keep vote is also erroneous. There's no sources that could be used to write about her, Wikipedia is not IMDB. The same problem is also true for Quinton Flynn who I have recently nominated for deletion, who has had a substantial number of roles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hymes AFD was closed 'too quickly' (less then a week) & with only four editors input. The low input there, shows the lack of notability of Hymes. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

78 minutes early was hardly likely to affect the balance of consensus. Cabayi (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no WP:SIGCOV. Clog Wolf _Howl 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This should be nominated at a later date, as the nomination (and possibly votes) may have been influenced by the subject's (and associated COI user's) behavior, more than an impartial analysis of the the article. We should calm our emotions and at least give the article the same chance as other articles. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WWeak keep While I wish the sources were more reliable, as an actor she’s had at least a few notable credits (e.g. Trial of the Chicago 7) so in my opinion, the bare minimum of notability is there. Notability ≠ fame sometimes. Trillfendi (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2021 (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.