Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 17 September 2014

Danièle Watts

Danièle Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Film/TV actress with only minor roles. Mostly covered in the news lately, for a minor story, that's likely to result in undue negative content. (Some editors, who added hearsay from poor sources, have added that she is "best known" for this.) Specifically, for being handcuffed by the LAPD while with her partner, according to her account because she was mistaken for a prostitute. —innotata 20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep. As I tried to explain on the talkpage, I created this stub because she has acted on film and television. She is "best known" (not necessarily famous) for acting in Django Unchained, because it was an internationally distributed film. She has also appeared on many television series, which are also shown internationally. I added the "incident" to the "personal life" section because it is a minor event (indeed, an incident), but it did get international coverage in the press (for example, in France). I believe she is notable as an actress, regardless of the incident. I would recommend keeping this page and hopefully expanding it, as it is a mere stub. When/where was she born, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's up to you to establish her notability as an actress by adding sources and content. She doesn't seem notable to a non-expert, looking at articles like Django Unchained. The international coverage of the police incident isn't relevant to her notability, as it's just coverage of an isolated event, and not a very significant one at all. —innotata 21:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, upon creating the article, I added references for her acting work on Django but also several other films and television series, which are watched by millions of people globally. It's also a stub, which means it is a work in process which should be expanded.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To establish that she's notable, you need to add sources with coverage of her career, and a bit of content too. All the more so, with the police incident and negative coverage of her. —innotata 21:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is fully sourced, but it is a stub. Help us expand it with more referenced info if you want. Otherwise, hopefully others will expand the page too. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, and a work in progress. Don't tell me what to do or try to start a fight. I also don't think her page should be deleted because she is black--she is an actress seen on screen by millions of people--no need to debase her work. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please! I brought this to AfD because this is person who didn't seem notable (and still doesn't), and because the article has little more than the police incident, so it needs more scrutiny to ensure we aren't providing inappropriate, negative coverage of the subject. I guess race, perhaps, means it's more likely we'll get vandalism/POV-pushing. It's quite OK for the article to be a stub, and lack detail, but it needs to establish the subject's notability in some way. Adding more coverage of the police incident, because it has mentions of her acting career, doesn't help with that. —innotata 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think deleting her page may be seen by some as racist. I'm sure you're not, but the process may be misconstrued as such. Would her page really have been suggested for deletion if she were white? As I said, she is an actress seen by millions on TV and on the big screen.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think deleting her page may be seen by some as racist. I'm sure you're not, but the process may be misconstrued as such. Would her page really have been suggested for deletion if she were white?

Are you actually being serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.58.4 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I really don't like how you are now trying to turn her page into tabloid gossip. For crying out loud, let's focus on her acting career, not on what some sources might say, and others might say! Let's remain encyclopedic! It is hard to assume good faith when you are an unidentified IP address whose only edits are on her page...Zigzig20s (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is even harder to remain serious when you knowingly lie and claim that she's best known for being an actress whereas you know very well yourself that she came to fame due to this incident. The very incident is the entire reason why you created the page. Saying that we ought to focus on her acting career is completely ridiculous. You have IMDB to do that for her and every other little known actor. Search for news about her prior to the incident - it's completely non-existent, because she's not notable. And the info I added were statements made by the police and well-sourced. Stop removing content just because you don't like it. 93.136.58.4 (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I ask that other editors take care of this madness. We are trying to have an adult conversation here about whether she is a notable actress or not, and this strange IP address is editing the page to make it look bad and badly influence the deletion process. Please do something, other editors. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Famous for a police incident in which she may or not not have been accused of being a prostitute. A minor role in a film does not equate to notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge she has also acted on many television series, which are watched by millions of people globally.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge that these were all minor roles. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about why you claim her roles are "minor" when they are seen by millions on TV and on film? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody watches these television shows for her. She is a minor character in one episode only for most of them. It doesn't matter if the television show is notable, she isn't. Viewing figures do not affect the notability of this person. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

She was in 8 episodes of Weeds and 10 episodes of Partners for example. So no, not just one episode, I am sorry.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen every episode of Weeds and I've got no idea who she played. Clearly a very minor role. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't watch television, but I certainly don't think this article should be based on your opinion, or faulty memory. It's on IMDB. There are wikilinks from those two television programs, and she is a main cast member on Partners.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Main cast member of Weeds? That's why she was never mentioned in the opening credits. You have blatantly just lied. You said you don't watch television, so how on earth could you possibly know whether she was a main cast member? She was, at best, a minor character in a very minor and forgettable story arc. Those two television programmes being notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages page are irrelevant and have no merit as to whether this particular actress, who featured in X number of episodes, is notable in her own right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you read? If you can, you will go back and see that I wrote..."a main cast member on Partners"... Sorry, I cannot help you if you cannot read--and then accuse others of lying.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blame your dreadful verbiage for any misunderstanding. Pipe down. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not a difficult sentence for you to read and understand. She is a main cast member on X show...and you chose to read, on Y show, and blamed my wording...Ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's you: "She was in 8 episodes of Weeds". Here's me: "I've got no idea who she played. Clearly a very minor role". Here's you: "I certainly don't think this article should be based on your opinion, or faulty memory. It's on IMDB. There are wikilinks from those two television programs". LOL at you not being able to construct an argument without causing confusion.. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I simply cannot teach you not to read. This is achieving nothing anyway. She has been in lots of films and TV series, some of which were more significant than others. Main cast member on current TV show.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple films, television shows...." As she has mostly has minor roles, she has yet to met WP:NACTOR yet. One incident does not necessarily change that.-- danntm _C 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about why you claim her roles are "minor" when they are seen by millions on TV and on film? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"There are no small parts, only small actors." DragonflyDC (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see above, she is a main cast member on Partners.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe. That isn't necessarily enough, as WP:ENT explains. And the article needs to have content/sources that establish her notability; while it'd be great if it could be expanded, that's all that's needed for the article to be kept. —innotata 06:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive the lateness of my response. I will assume arguendo that Ms. Watts's role on Partners is significant. However, WP:NACTOR still requires "significant roles in multiple films, television shows..." Thus, she needs more than just one significant role in a single television show. Furthermore, in response Zigzig20s's query above, significant is how big the role was relative to the production. It is not relevant how big the production itself turned out to be. The Guardians of the Galaxy (film) was certainly big, and has been seen by millions. But not every walk-on or extra in that film can be said to have had a significant role in the film. Merely being in a significant entertainment production does not mean your part therein was significant.-- danntm _C 23:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, see below, User:GiantSnowman seems to disagree with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —innotata 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep Minor parts or not, IMDb lists her with 34 credits as an actor, including reoccurring characters on Partners and Weeds. While it may have been the recent unpleasantness that made editors realize there was no Misplaced Pages entry for her, she is certainly notable enough to merit an article. Rather than delete, we should flesh this article out. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The article still doesn't establish her general notability at present, and her one supporting role in Partners (as far as I can tell her only one as a 'main cast member') might not be enough to meet the usual notability guideline for entertainers. —innotata 06:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are making an argument to fix the article, not to delete it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, articles that aren't shown to meet the general criteria of notability get deleted. There's no coverage of her apart from this single event (and see WP:1E) that's been added to the article. —innotata 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's called a career. She's acted in several films and TV series and is currently acting on television again, alongside Kelsey Grammer and others. She's not Grace Kelly, but she is a notable actress as her IMDB credits show.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - her role in Django was significant enough for me, as in remembered her in it without having to look her up, and when combined with her other roles across both TV and film I think she is notable. GiantSnowman 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NACTOR. Most of the coverage centres around this one event. Many of the roles appear to be in minor films or supporting roles, and the article does not yet rise up to the standard of WP:GNG; In this case, she seems to have turned what was a misunderstanding into a media storm among certain sections of the press, so I fail to see how heresay has ever been seen as reliable. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comment above; an unregistered IP address has made the passage about the "incident" much longer than it should be. This page should be focusing on her career (actress in an internationally distributed film and main cast member of a TV series). I am afraid the way this IP address has edited the article may be an attempt to influence this deletion suggestion disparagingly.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

has made the passage about the "incident" much longer than it should be.

Sorry, what? So you decide what's the appropriate length? Searching for her literally returns only results about the incident. Searching for results prior to the incident gives NO results. How exactly have I made it "longer than it should be" when that's the only exposure she has had in media? You've literally only came to know about her DUE TO THE INCIDENT. 93.136.58.4 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's NOT what Misplaced Pages is. If she really hasn't been covered for anything other than a single incident, she should not have an article, hence this deletion request. If she has an article we cannot cover one negative incident to an undue extent, see our policies on living people. —innotata 17:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

She should, and her page should focus on her acting career. Not have half her article listing every single detail of an interaction with the police. She has been in a widely popular, internationally distributed film and she is a main cast member on a TV series, has acted in other films and TV series as well...I feel like I am repeating myself because of an unregistered address who is aggressive and nonsensical, at this point. Perhaps the unregistered IP address should be blocked? They seem to be here solely to disrupt this process, make the page look worse, and get angry with whoever tells them they are wrong. And who are they? It remains a mystery. Somebody who used an IP address only to add detailed info about an alleged tape from TMZ. Sigh. Please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

She shouldn't have any of this as there isn't sufficient coverage to be able to do so. She is famous for the police maybe thinking she was a prossie. Not notable. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: repeating the same thing over and over will not change my mind - I do read the complete AfD before !voting. As soon as I am presented with evidence they pass WP:NACTOR, then I will reconsider. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR, the relevant notability guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The only thing she's really famous for has been removed from the article. No wikipedian considered her notable enough to create a biography about her before her recent run-in with police—an event that has been removed from her bio. People argue that she's notable for her work on Django Unchained, but she wasn't even mentioned in that article until her recent run-in with police. --JHP (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates