This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 25 September 2014 (redact completely inappropriate comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:19, 25 September 2014 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (redact completely inappropriate comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- 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 keep. Consensus appears to be this: 8 episodes as a major character of a well-known series (Weeds) is the beginning of notability. 10 as main character in a new series with extensive press meets definition of "multiple significant roles". Incredibly minor role in "Django Unchained" does not benefit at all. The "crime" certainly does not lead to any form of notability, and without any formal arrest or conviction should not even BE in the article. The tone, wording, and unfounded accusations on this page make me FORCED to remind people that WP:BLP applies to ALL Misplaced Pages pages: unwarranted name-calling of a living person is wholly inappropriate, and it may indeed be necessary to a) protect the article, b) courtesy-blank this AFD, and c) temporarily block some of the contributors to the page AND this AFD. the panda ₯’ 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I simply cannot teach you how to write a sentence without you using improper verbiage. She has been a VERY MINOR CHARACTER in SOME TV shows. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:17, 17 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Blame your dreadful verbiage for any misunderstanding. Pipe down. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:00, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You fail to acknowledge that these were all minor roles. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:43, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 see above, she is a main cast member on Partners.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- "There are no small parts, only small actors." DragonflyDC (talk) 00:16, 16 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You are making an argument to fix the article, not to delete it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:21, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- I don't think the incident with the police should have been removed. One sentence or two was fine in the 'personal life' section. The problem is some people who want this article deleted tried to write a very long passage about every single detail regarding this incident, thus making the article look like gossip. Her role as main cast member of a TV series seems perfectly notable, alongside her other roles in the past. I am beginning to wonder whether some editors are trying to delete her page and trash it in the mean time out of racism or not. Would this really be proposed for deletion if she were white? Let's be honest here...Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll be honest here. I find your accusations of racism grossly offensive, and can think of no legitimate reason why you should not be blocked immediately and indefinitely for making such an obnoxious personal attack on the motivations of multiple contributors. I suggest that you redact the multiple accusations of racism you have made on this talk page immediately, before I bring the matter up at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- What? I am not accusing anyone specifically, but I am wondering if that is the case or not. It probably isn't. Who knows. For an African-American actress who acted in a film that dealt with African-American slavery and was subsequently allegedly handcuffed for being black to get her page deleted, frankly, looks VERY BAD. This is not a personal attack on anyone at all. I am just wondering. There are legitimate concerns, given that she has portrayed historical racism and then allegedly experienced racism herself. My point is that it wouldn't be a stretch for some media outlets to accuse Misplaced Pages of racism if her page gets deleted, and I am concerned for the reputation of Misplaced Pages, as a long-time editor who has had DYK's and created many useful articles about historical figures, listed buildings, added many pictures I took on Wikimedia Commons all over the world, etc. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll be honest here. I find your accusations of racism grossly offensive, and can think of no legitimate reason why you should not be blocked immediately and indefinitely for making such an obnoxious personal attack on the motivations of multiple contributors. I suggest that you redact the multiple accusations of racism you have made on this talk page immediately, before I bring the matter up at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- I don't think the incident with the police should have been removed. One sentence or two was fine in the 'personal life' section. The problem is some people who want this article deleted tried to write a very long passage about every single detail regarding this incident, thus making the article look like gossip. Her role as main cast member of a TV series seems perfectly notable, alongside her other roles in the past. I am beginning to wonder whether some editors are trying to delete her page and trash it in the mean time out of racism or not. Would this really be proposed for deletion if she were white? Let's be honest here...Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject meets NACTOR. It would be more helpful if editors would systematically and consistently support the removal of embarassing but fundamentally insignificant press clips from celebrity articles generally. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NACTOR:
- Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
- 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
- 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
- Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
- WP:NACTOR:
- Can you clarify which sources demonstrate that Ms Watts meets which of the above criteria? The article currently provides no such evidence, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR guidelines and not otherwise notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep As an inclusionist and woman-lover, I'd have said keep anyway. Anyone who news google here would see she this week made headlines in quite an interesting case that should make headlines for a while. I haven't even started reading down the list yet of other notable items... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- This incident is the sort of tabloid story that shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages at all for lack of long-term significance and because we must be mindful of what we write about living people. Maybe if, for example, she had been charged or if a long court case ensues that would be different. Encyclopedias aren't newspapers.
- Setting the LAPD aside, there's hardly anything written about her and she's had a single non-bit role (at least so far as I can tell now). —innotata 23:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to go through the articles now in a systematic fashion. They often provide details to fill out a bio and lead to other info and refs. And I'll put them in. Also, this sort of incident often leads to some nice articles all about the individual which are very useable. So we shall see. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Actress on film and TV, already notable enough that the cop story made the news. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'Being an actress' isn't one of the criteria for WP:NACTOR - and see WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wales wants Misplaced Pages to be the sum of all knowledge. Who should I support? You? Or Wales? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to propose a change of policy regarding subject notability, feel free to do so, at the appropriate place. Meanwhile, this AfD concerns itself with whether the subject is notable according to current criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The one editor's accusations of racism are off the mark. The problem here is not racism, it's arrogance - Wikipedians thinking they are smarter than everyone else. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should consider being a little less arrogant then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- After you. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should consider being a little less arrogant then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The one editor's accusations of racism are off the mark. The problem here is not racism, it's arrogance - Wikipedians thinking they are smarter than everyone else. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to propose a change of policy regarding subject notability, feel free to do so, at the appropriate place. Meanwhile, this AfD concerns itself with whether the subject is notable according to current criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wales wants Misplaced Pages to be the sum of all knowledge. Who should I support? You? Or Wales? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) She's had at most a single significant role, so it's not true she got headlines because she's famous, and this story is not enough to make her notable. —innotata 23:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'Being an actress' isn't one of the criteria for WP:NACTOR - and see WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Set aside the LA police incident, and she's an actress whose only claim to fame is one minor role in one major movie. OhNoitsJamie 23:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Claim to notability rests on a very minor part in a single film. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER as I see no major roles in what she has appeared in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete nn actress. Her otherwise BLP1E was only newsy and not noteworthy per WP:CRIME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable actress who was publicly arrested
small-time crime perpetrator. Movie and television roles to date fail to satisfy the specific notability guidelines for actors per WP:NACTOR, and any claim to notability per the general guidelines of WP:GNG is disqualified by the WP:BLP1E exception. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)- "small-time crime perpetrator" Excuse me? She hasn't been convicted of any crime, the LAPD denied some of what the tabloids said about that. —innotata 03:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I echo this. DL, you're a lawyer, you not only seem to be incorrect in your assertion, but you should know better than to make it in the first place... Carrite (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - There appears to be evidence of her notability. One minor role in one major movie is notability. Notable is notable for stubs. If it weren't a stub, I would suggest stubbing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Without the recent news item, we would have no article, I think you know that. There is a case for an article on the news story if the facts are eventually reliably established and teased out form the hysterical tabloid nonsense, but this is not a biography, per WP:BLP, it's a directory entry plus a tabloid news story. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand what the consensus ideas about encyclopedic notability here are. One role is not enough to automatically make someone notable, especially not one for which she wasn't listed in the main cast (her role in the series Partners is more to go by it seems). And there's pretty universal agreement that we do not insist that articles remain stubs. It should be possible to write a full (though brief) article on any subject with an article. —innotata 03:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – Django Unchained is the only film in that article that she is really famous for. Watts can be mentioned in the Cast section of the film. Epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Regardless of how she obtained her notability, she now has it and this stub does have the potential to be expanded into a nice article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable actress who only appeared in one famous film. Notice how the media never used her name, but used "Django Actress". Noahcs (Talk) 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The film plus the ongoing television role equals the "multiple" necessary for a pass of NACTOR. The crime blotter argument is misdirection. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The requirement is for 'multiple significant roles' - not just 'multiple roles'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - For all the reasons given so far on notability and actors. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep
Weak keep- I'm not convinced that one role (given we require multiple significant roles) is enough by itself. Given the amount of media attention, it seems strange not to have an article about her. I suppose my thinking is that if the police incident had happened to someone who hadn't been in Django, it wouldn't be an issue and it would never have made the news. Because she's a "minor" celebrity (and even that might be a stretch), media outlets thought it worth covering. It was covered on the news down here in Australia. The acting roles mean this goes a bit beyond BLP1E in my view. Still not 100% but I can't bring myself to opine for deletion. St★lwart 04:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Changing to "keep" - there are apparently more roles. I'm more and more convinced that this is a notable actress about whom we should have had an article some time ago. Had this been created after her role in Django (rather than after the recent "controversy"), we wouldn't be here. The catalyst for creation is never a good rationale for deletion. St★lwart 06:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Stalwart. Credited role in a TV show, then known for major role in Django. Two such roles seems to satisfy NACTOR. There was some extensive press coverage back in 2013, calling her an up and coming actress and calling her Django minor role memorable: . Her police encounter should be mentioned briefly in the article. If she were a non-notable actress, the police encounter wouldn't have gotten world-wide coverage. Edison (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't an article in blackgirllonghair.com that allocates more space to discussing what hair products Watts uses than it does to her role in Django rather a poor example to pick if one wishes to demonstrate 'extensive press coverage' of the role? If the coverage is 'extensive', show us some more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree somewhat with these "weak keep" arguments, let me clarify that she has a credited role in Django and a single major role in Partners, not vice versa. And, my impression is that the story was covered simply because this apparently was a case of remarkably egregious police behavior (and later by tabloids because of the salaciousness of blaming Watts). —innotata 16:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Uhhh, civil rights leaders abandoned Watts. The police have been relatively quiet. They didn't even arrest her on the complaint alleging sex in public. Civil rights leaders rallied around her until the saw and heard video and walked away. Quickly. --DHeyward (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Disagree with the assertion that this is a non-notable actress given the existing coverage specific to this person. Yamaguchi先生 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- The recent coverage over an alleged criminal complaint and the following charges of racial profiling are now nearly all negative regarding her actions specifically from civil rights leaders. That's her most notable act to date. It's against BLP policy retain biographies of this type per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Keeping thise article on recent coverage is poor editorial judgement. At some point, she may become more notable that this incident isn't the major claim for notability. --DHeyward (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails all points of WP:NACTOR - no major roles, no cult following, no significant contributions. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NACTOR doesn't require "major roles", it refers to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ms. Watts currently has minor, not significant roles. Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NACTOR doesn't require "major roles", it refers to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:NACTOR with multiple "significant roles" in (1) Partners which is a notable TV show on FX - she plays one of the 7 major roles as the main character's daughter; (2) Weeds (season 8) - a notable TV show in which she plays Shane's love interest (the girl he meets in the police academy) in 8 of 13 episodes of Season 8; and (3) Django Unchained - a highly notable motion picture in the role of the house slave "Coco". Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The timing of her biography and her coverage in news media make her a WP:NOTNEWS as her acting ability was discovered when she was placed in handcuffs. It became viral when she claimed racial profiling and evaporated just as quickly when the evidence went against her. An article would have to cover "woman cries wolf over racial profiling" which is her main claim to notability right now. Since she is not notable enough for other things, WP:AVOIDVICTIM demands deletion. If she gains enough fame where this is a minor incident in her notability, it can be restored but since it's a major component of notability, prolonging her bio serves no purpose but neither can it be ignored if her biography continues. It would be an elephant in the room to be ommitted while keeping lesser claims to notability. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - she's just about notable enough based on her film roles alone, given that we have many articles on other actors with similar or shorter CVs. And the recent controversial LAPD incident only makes her more notable. It should certainly be mentioned in the article - it's unarguably received more media attention than anything else she's done. (If the conclusion of this discussion is to delete the article, perhaps it could instead be merged/redirected into a new article on LAPD controversies, which appears not to exist.) Robofish (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment' The LAPD detention and her subsequent allegations have been removed from the article after audio, witnesses and the complaint were made public. Civil rights activists who initially supported her withdrew their support and urged her to apologize to LAPD. It has been removed because she is not notable enough to have such a negative and prominent incident. --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- DELETE--There was no Wiki page for this woman before the incident with the police because she just wasn't noteworthy enough to merit a page. She wasn't even mentioned on the Django Unchained page before the police incident. And all the publicity she has garnered recently has been unduly negative, with civil rights leaders calling for her to apologize to the police.
- The catalyst for creation is irrelevant. St★lwart 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- That would be true if the notable catalyst were able to be covered. Since the catalyst and notable event is not covered because it makes it BLP1E, or AVOIDVICTIM violations, the it should be deleted. Her notability is inexorably linked to the event. At some point where the vent can be covered in a way that isn't her dominant reason for notability it should be deleted. Notable figures can have negative events covered in their bio, NN figure cannot and should be deleted for privacy reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the "dominant reason for notability" and (while it was covered in international news) I don't have a particular issue with it staying in the article or not. But citing the timing of the article's creation as a reason for deletion is just silly. I've created BLPs because I met the subjects and later wondered whether they had articles here. They didn't and I created them, not because of my meeting them (which will never make it into the articles) but because of the other things for which they were notable. The same is the case for historical figures to whom I have seen dedications on public buildings and have returned home to create articles. There's nothing wrong with seeing something on the news, wondering if the person is notable enough for an article and then creating it (with or without that news item included). St★lwart 06:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- And the WP:AVOIDVICTIM references are a bit of a red herring. I know what you're trying to say but that doesn't really relate to this. She's had at least two separate roles that people consider to have been fairly significant. So the BLP1E line was way back there somewhere, before any of the police stuff. Whether we include the "controversy" or not is an editorial matter, not really a justification for deleting an article we probably should have had a year ago (when she passed the notability threshold). Had it been created then, I don't think we'd be having this conversation and that says it all really. St★lwart 06:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- That would be true if the notable catalyst were able to be covered. Since the catalyst and notable event is not covered because it makes it BLP1E, or AVOIDVICTIM violations, the it should be deleted. Her notability is inexorably linked to the event. At some point where the vent can be covered in a way that isn't her dominant reason for notability it should be deleted. Notable figures can have negative events covered in their bio, NN figure cannot and should be deleted for privacy reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The catalyst for creation is irrelevant. St★lwart 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR guidelines and not otherwise notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG.Scran4d (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 00:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Her notability is attested by her many film roles (people have updated the article to be more comprehensive) and by it being found newsworthy that pusillanimous defenders of civil rights have called on her to apologize for complaining about being arrested when she was doing no harm to anyone. It looks like there is a real political question here of whether someone of a different race would really truly have had to fear the same harassment for such innocent fun, and whether police can excuse behavior that has the effect of racial profiling merely because they didn't initiate the first phone call. If people are voting to delete because they want to protect her from "shame" then they should reconsider. Demands for equality and freedom have always seemed grasping, brash, "unreasonable" to those standing in the way, and this is no exception. Wnt (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete If she ever becomes noteworthy as an actress, it would be appropriate to put up a page. At this point, the only news about her is the problem she created for herself The incident alone is not enough to merit a Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.145.202 (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have yet to see any evidence of sex in public, though some people define "sex" and "public" in weird ways. The reports I saw said she kept her pants on! And when I listened to the first part of the actual "damning" audiotape that some Muslim civil rights leader took as reason to call for her apology, I still sympathize entirely with her. The fact that she is agitated and the policeman is not reflects that she is the one being stopped and harassed. She never accused the cop of profiling her - she briefly alluded to how many times she had had to deal with people assuming she was a criminal and calling police, with the reasonable assumption that they probably wouldn't treat a white woman the same way. And she was right that this used to be the kind of country where people were proud that they couldn't be stopped and demanded to show papers at every street corner. Now it seems like common sense that the officer says "now you see why you're in handcuffs?" because she suggested she ought to have the right to identify him the way he identified her. If somebody claimed they saw part of her breasts then hell, that too ought to be a civil right, guys can show their pretty breasts after all - that's what the courts in New York already recognize. We have a prison system in the U.S. that is chock full of black people even though they are no more criminal than whites, and in aggregate nobody denies that is a bad thing, yet the moment someone like this dares speak up for herself, she's treated like some kind of conspiracy nut because she could imagine such a thing might possible happen - no matter how often it may actually have happened to her. We should cover this, we should recognize that it is important, and we should be thankful that we have people like Daniele Watts to stand up for the rights of all of us by being a pain in the ass and not just going along to get along. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- If people are going to dismiss this as a "minor incident" and suggest she was simply in the wrong, then I should have the right to explain some of the relevant issues. I understand that proper sourcing is required before adding anything to the article. Some of these are emerging already, and I think we will see more RS discussion of the issues over the next few days. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WNT, you are, of course, entitled to express your opinion regarding the higher percentage incarceration rate among African-Americans (even if this is not an appropriate forum). That having been said, there is very little doubt that Watts was arrested for the commission of a crime (indecent exposure), after a complaint was called into the LAPD by one of her neighbors. Whatever else the LAPD may be guilty of, blaming LAPD for this incident is a bit over the top. Someone called, the cops responded, cops found Watts engaged in inappropriate activity. After she got sassy with the cops, she got cuffed. Frankly, she's lucky she didn't spend a night in the LA County jail. Having sex in public is a crime, albeit usually a misdemeanor, by whatever name it goes by in a particular state. This is not, and should not be a racial issue. Plenty of white Americans have been arrested, charged and convicted for doing similarly stupid things in public, too. (Anyone who wants to "hat" this comment and the preceding digressions has my express permission to do so.) I'll let others decide what impact this has on the notability of the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and for the record, here's at least one source reporting the story of the office workers who called LAPD to complain about Watts and her boyfriend's public conduct in a car, parked on a public street, with the passenger door open, in full view of their office windows: TMZ. Like I said, she and her boyfriend are lucky they did not spend a night in jail. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- TMZ makes it sound that way, but do you see that in their pictures? I zoomed in the first one and the guy has his arm firmly around her waist, she's wearing a shirt, she's wearing pants, what kind of sex is that? And the second one they're not close enough to do anything. Ordinarily this kind of primary-source OR is frowned upon but under BLP we'll probably end up considering if we believe the source; besides, I don't think it takes specialist knowledge beyond grade-school sex ed class. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and for the record, here's at least one source reporting the story of the office workers who called LAPD to complain about Watts and her boyfriend's public conduct in a car, parked on a public street, with the passenger door open, in full view of their office windows: TMZ. Like I said, she and her boyfriend are lucky they did not spend a night in jail. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WNT, you are, of course, entitled to express your opinion regarding the higher percentage incarceration rate among African-Americans (even if this is not an appropriate forum). That having been said, there is very little doubt that Watts was arrested for the commission of a crime (indecent exposure), after a complaint was called into the LAPD by one of her neighbors. Whatever else the LAPD may be guilty of, blaming LAPD for this incident is a bit over the top. Someone called, the cops responded, cops found Watts engaged in inappropriate activity. After she got sassy with the cops, she got cuffed. Frankly, she's lucky she didn't spend a night in the LA County jail. Having sex in public is a crime, albeit usually a misdemeanor, by whatever name it goes by in a particular state. This is not, and should not be a racial issue. Plenty of white Americans have been arrested, charged and convicted for doing similarly stupid things in public, too. (Anyone who wants to "hat" this comment and the preceding digressions has my express permission to do so.) I'll let others decide what impact this has on the notability of the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- If people are going to dismiss this as a "minor incident" and suggest she was simply in the wrong, then I should have the right to explain some of the relevant issues. I understand that proper sourcing is required before adding anything to the article. Some of these are emerging already, and I think we will see more RS discussion of the issues over the next few days. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
DELETE Daniele Watts does not meet the notability guidelines as an actress. When her name is Googled, all that comes up is her media firestorm over the crime she committed. I quote Wiki's policy on pages for criminals. "For perpetrators...The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Watts was not even charged with the crime of having sex in public, so she certainly can't be convicted on it. The motivation for her crime is not unusual-she can't control her urges. And the victims of her crime were anonymous office workers. She doesn't merit a page as a criminal, and her acting career is so unnoteworthy that even after she appeared for two minutes in Django Unchained, no one felt that she needed a page. This page was created in direct response to Watts' criminal behavior and even as a criminal, she fails to meet the standard of noteworthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.145.202 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- As she didn't commit a crime this is a peculiar criterion to try to go by. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Having sex in public is a crime. She didn't get charged or convicted, but that doesn't mean she is innocent. By your standard, Al Capone never killed anyone because all he was convicted of was tax evasion. As usual, the only buzz about Watts in the news is about her criminal behavior, supported by her criminal boyfriend, and her refusal to apologize to the LAPD. NOT noteworthy news for an actress! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.145.202 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- See my comment above. The pictures TMZ said "look like sex" definitely don't. Zoom for yourself and see. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Having sex in public is a crime. She didn't get charged or convicted, but that doesn't mean she is innocent. By your standard, Al Capone never killed anyone because all he was convicted of was tax evasion. As usual, the only buzz about Watts in the news is about her criminal behavior, supported by her criminal boyfriend, and her refusal to apologize to the LAPD. NOT noteworthy news for an actress! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.145.202 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2014 (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.