Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simona Williams

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. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Williams

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

it appears to only have tabloid information, and the subjest is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Williams has appeared as a regular on the Danish version of The Real Housewives of... And had roles in several Hollywood films. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~i'll take you at your word, and withdraw this, but the article really doesn't state that at all.~~ -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it needs expansion. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, upon further thought, I'm not gonna withdraw it. I want to see what other users have to say, especially as most of the sources are tabloid-esque... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
I'm not entirely convinced about the degree of alignment of "The Real Housewives" & "Danske Hollywoodfruer".
There is however no doubt about the fallacy in the assumption of both "The Real Housewives" and "Danske Hollywoodfruer" being equally popular or noteworthy.
In fact: "Danske Hollywoodfruer" was a reality show, of mediocre popularity & stature, and really only served for providing tabloid media a chance to spotwise fill-in otherwise blanks in the daily production (of their tabloid papers).
It's no surprise that Danish Wikipedia (da.wikipedia.org) has no entry on that show.
Claiming fame or notability for having been only part of something that isn't notable, doesn't make sense at all.
Furthermore: "Danske Hollywoodfruer" was (to the very best of my knowledge) never broadcast outside its natural language barrier. (Danish is only spoken in Denmark, by about 5 million people. Though Sweden & Norway is able to understand at least some Danish.)
So, in the scope of English Wikipedia: 1/4 (Simone Levin, being 1) of the 4 persons being labelled as a "Hollywoodfrue", and only being in the first season of the show, being a mediocre & not (domestically, Denmark) overly popular reality show, which was never broadcast to any English audience. ... (Well, since I actually once watched about 10 minutes of the show, then: Maybe that make me personally notable on English Wikipedia too. - But I'm not going to create an article on myself, since I don't have any promotional need for it.)

As to being part of Hollywood movies, then: Yes, that's true - but! All the roles she's been in, barely scrapes the category of stand-in or extras.
While people w. promotinal interest in Simone Levin (aka Simona Williams) has done their job here on wikipedia, adding her roles to the article's "Filmography"-section, then: Take a look at what the roles are, and you'll see role/character-names like "Feminist Leader #1", "Craps Table Girl #3", ...
If you then further move on to visit the offical websites of most of the 17 listed movies , then: It's not uncommon for her name not being in the cast-list at all.
Though, I did manage to find a clip (on YouTube) from a movie, where she (in her role/character) actually speaks (for about 2 minutes, i.e. a few lines for the role was in the moviescript).

Well, not all actors are destined for Academy Awards nomination (aka. Oscar nomination), but ... an actor or a wanna-be actor, thru past 13 years or more, closing in on her 50 years birthday, with zero shine in her acting carrier: That's not noteworthy.
Claimimg notability on Wikipedia for being an actor?!? : I can't find any independant recognised known named film-critique, who even hints or mention her performance in a movie review. (come to think of it, I don't even recall having seen any such film-critique ever mention her name or role).
Something20130828 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been withdrawn. that you are so sure that she is non notable but still you make such efforts to write about her and edit her article and you obviously has alot of knowledge about her films only that you for some reason seems to be having some sort of personal vendetta against Williams. Do you know her in real life or? --BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also new sources added today and article improved. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't know her in real life.

In fact: I had never ever heard about the woman until April.2013, where I accidently came accros the name in a complete unrelated context (it was a kind of SEO incident/example).

Q: Why did I choose to (or tried to) do somthing about the article(?) (back in April/May.2013)

A: Well, I had never really tried to edit anything much on Wikipedia (and had never ever had an account), so I simply picked that article as an exercise.

Q: Why/How do I have so much knownledge about this subject/her(?)

A: Because I did my homework! (chocking I know - contrasting the public reputation of Wikipedia as a place where half-assed idiots & ignorants will dive into matters without having knowledge, and then "form a concensus").

Well, unfortunately not surprising at all, but still exceptionally glaring - is to observe some people disputing the subject (Simone Levin), yet without them having the ability to seek out or judge the information sources for themselves. Yeah: Nearly all the relevant sources are written in Danish, and rooted in Denmark. A machine translation may provide resonable aid in reading, but! for the purpose of content generation, i.e. writing quality articles, then: Seeking out information, reliably passing judgement on such found, and proposed sources from other editors - requires knowledge on relevant language, culture, and laws. (knowledge about where to look for regional dark-web information also helps in investigations)

Something20130828 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per BabbaQ. Something20130828 doesn't seem to realize that whether a subject has an article on their native Wikipedia is not relevant; it's whether it satisfies this Wiki's guidelines or not. Here, being a regular in the Danish "The Real Housewives" should be enough. That said, due to a lack of any Danish knowledge, I don't know which of those are RS, IMDB is obviously not grounds for notability, and Dread Central is unconvincing in its reliability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About the sources: I can read the Scandinavian languages, and am reasonably familiar with BT (tabloid) (Danish), Ekstra Bladet (Danish) and Expressen (Swedish). They're lousy tabloid rags. Just reading about their attempts to corner Williams into admitting to being ten years older than she has claimed (such bullying interviews with the subject are the lovely sources for the DOB) makes my skin crawl. I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sun rises in the east. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm sorry Bishonen, but I'm going to stray off-topic here, because I can not help myself from smiling or laughing here. Take a good close look at Simone Levin, who's being subjected to "bullying interviews" from the "lousy tabloid rags". I think you're scolding the kettle for treating the pot as black. Something20130828 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly weak Delete. The sources are unreliable, even apart from being distasteful, and I have trouble seeing anything notable in Williams' acting career. About the Danish "Real Housewives" show, I suppose your mileage may vary. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per WP:ONEEVENT. This is a bio page which I feel is rather borderline. I do disagree with the initial delete !vote in that a biography on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the quality of that person's work but rather only whether or not the criteria for significant coverage of the individual in independent reliable sources has been met (per WP:GNG). The sources and the information I added to the article are reliable -- being broadcast by Belingske Tidende media group and the Ritzau news service. (Note: Tabloid format does not equate to "Tabloid journalism"). However, after searching for coverage, I found that all of the coverage occurred during a brief span of several months in 2010 and centered almost entirely around a single topic: the subject's age. I found no coverage prior to 2010 and none since then. Therefore, I suggest deleting as per single event. If the person generates news coverage in future years, than the page can be recreated. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a No Consensus AfD even the users !voting weak delete admits it is a borderline case. But in my opinion she has done more work then many other "actors" on this Wikipedia. I think unfortunatly this time cactus and bish has not proven the non notability that is needed for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2013 (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.