1159:. She's had at least two major roles in notable TV series. Sure, they're animated series, but the fact is that they are still major roles in notable series. Kagome is one of the two most major characters in the Inuyasha franchise and while she only voiced the character for The Final Act, that still counts towards notability. Tozer is also one of the main characters in the Littlest Pet Shop TV series, which is also a notable TV show. It's not as infamous as Inuyasha is, but it's still a notable television show. So here we have her performing as two of the main characters in two notable television shows, which would definitely show that she passes notability guidelines. That's just for the two shows that I'm personally familiar with. A look at her other VA credits shows that she was a major character in
1171:, and so on. This is one of those very, very rare instances where someone passes notability guidelines without having as oodles of coverage. The problem here is that voice actors very, very rarely gain the amount of coverage that their live action counterparts would and while we're not here to make up the difference, Tozer has had major roles in multiple notable series. It doesn't help that the article only has a portion of her filmography, so I'll try to fix that.
952:. But if the guideline calling only for verifiability of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" in the lack of SIGCOV can be ignored, then it would seem you're advocating the revocation of all SNGs. If you start the revocation RFC, let's see who agrees. Thank you.
1192:
had a ton of coverage. What we need to look at is whether or not the shows she's been in are notable or not, then look at how major her role has been in each series. A look at her roles shows that yes, the shows are by large notable and yes, the roles are mostly major- in some cases going over 50 episodes.
985:
reliable sources you have to provide to start a keepable article, and not an exemption from our standards for the basic reliability of the sources themselves. It only takes one or two reliable sources to start a keepable article about a person who passes a subject-specific inclusion guideline, rather
1191:
Basically, this is one of those instances where deleting the article would hurt
Knowledge more than help it. This is kind of why I find VA articles so frustrating: if they were a live action actress then odds are that this article would never have gone to AfD in the first place because they'd have
872:
an article with. For instance, if the claim is that a person passes ENT because they won a major acting award (Oscar, Emmy, CanScreen, etc.), then all you need is one media source which names them as the winner — but it still needs to be a reliable media source, not IMDb or the awarding
534:
The absence of citations in an article does not indicate that the subject is not notable. In order to assuage some of the concerns of the users who have protested against the article, I have located a few additional sources which can be used to improve the quality of citation currently
433:
after 7 hours. Right. Nice way to make it look like I'm a lazy slob. Do you realise that some of us do have lives here? As I've stated on other AfDs, I will NOT add sources till the AfD is closed. If you want add it and go around calling me a lazy fellow who hasn't bothered, go ahead.
788:
to contain routine namechecks of her in the cast lists of shows she's been in the casts of. That's not evidence that any "editorial staffs outside
Knowledge" are going out of their way to "place her into the historic records" — it's exactly the sort of routine directory coverage that
479:
I did search, that is why I made the statement in the first place. However, I did not have time to do an in depth search because I have had a busy day. Your statement still hasn't bothered adding (or atleast finding) is what I have an issue with.
888:
Further, the problem with ENT #1 (the only point in that list that I can see her even approaching on the basis of what's been written here) is that it's a generic and subjective criterion that casts its net so wide and loose that virtually
502:
coverage, not by the simple assertion that one "could probably" find more. That's especially true when there aren't any reliable sources in the article to begin with — the article is relying entirely on her own
Twitter feed and a blurb on
448:
I'm not disputing that, We all are busy and have lives I get that, If you were able to spend 5 minutes writing your keep !vote - You would've had 5 minutes to do a quick search ...., As for me providing sources - I'll repeat the above -
737:
745:
741:
901:
bit-part actors try to get
Knowledge articles by claiming that they were an ENT-passing "star" of a TV series on which they appeared as an unnamed character in a single scene of a single episode.) So it's not the
948:... not a matter of thinking the GNG "over-rules" the SNGs or about thinking the SNGs "over-rule" the GNG. The two are intended to compliment inter-changeably in a common sense consideration of notability. See
230:
167:
873:
organization's own PDF list of its winners. But claiming ENT rather than GNG doesn't exempt you from having to source the article at all, and it doesn't exempt you from the standards for what does or doesn't
372:
706:
pass our reliable sourcing rules, and nobody else in this discussion has offered any other sources at all. So my comment is still wholly correct as written and I stand by it until somebody
288:
120:
224:
161:
352:
403:" but 7 hours later and still hasn't even bothered adding (or atleast finding!) sources.... Anyway I've searched and found absolutely nothing so fails GNG. –
1069:
649:
is determined through sources being available, NOT through their being in an article on that topic. And yes, the nominator could certainly have given us a
690:
of sourcing, rather than by every possible source already having been added to the article. However, nobody has yet demonstrated that even one properly
565:
752:. We certainly need not do so here, but it seems some editorial staffs outside Knowledge must feel it worth placing her into the historic records.
1150:
127:
550:
507:, meaning that what we're waiting for here isn't "more reliable source coverage", but rather "any reliable source coverage at all".
661:
tells us that biographies of living persons should be dealt with quickly, carefully, and should depend on high-quality sources.
1168:
17:
93:
88:
97:
245:
182:
212:
149:
80:
1253:
571:
1153:
1276:
1232:
1160:
1081:
1043:
961:
864:
from our standards for quality of sourcing — the only difference between passing those and passing GNG is in how
852:
761:
674:
566:
http://turntherightcorner.com/2014/04/01/now-available-to-own-anchorman-2-47-ronin-knights-of-badassdom-and-more/
40:
599:, not real media with a demonstrable track record of editorial standards. So no, you haven't assuaged anything.
695:
318:
918:
to qualify for an article on here, but you still need more than the mere presence of her name in a couple of
578:
206:
143:
1272:
1249:
1196:
1175:
634:
574:
485:
439:
339:
36:
202:
139:
1257:
1235:
1203:
1182:
1137:
1108:
1084:
1046:
1002:
964:
931:
855:
818:
764:
723:
677:
608:
582:
524:
489:
474:
443:
424:
384:
364:
343:
322:
302:
273:
62:
1225:
1074:
1036:
986:
than the dozen or more it takes to pass GNG, but the sources still have to meet the same standard of
954:
845:
754:
667:
297:
268:
551:
http://www.wevancouver.com/arts/reel-people/nominees-announced-for-2014-ubcp-actra-awards-1.1385194
467:
417:
314:
238:
175:
252:
189:
949:
945:
906:
of passing ENT that gets a person past ENT, it's the quality of sourcing that can be provided to
284:
749:
545:
1104:
1095:- Nothing found to establish notability. Searches find blogs, SPS, and passing coverage only.
998:
927:
814:
774:
719:
662:
604:
520:
380:
360:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1271:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1245:
1216:
1193:
1172:
1156:
1133:
1118:
1096:
1019:
974:
969:
I didn't say there was any claim being made in this article about awards; I gave that as an
937:
626:
481:
435:
335:
53:
699:
292:
262:
84:
218:
155:
897:
to meet it whether they actually do or not. (I can't even tell you how many times I've
638:
618:
454:
404:
1099:
is pretty vague, but we don't have the sources to meet even that nebulous criteria. --
1023:
1015:
1011:
1007:
978:
941:
828:
824:
729:
658:
654:
650:
646:
630:
622:
560:
1164:
1100:
1031:
994:
987:
923:
843:
notability guide, we'd have no need for the SNGs to ever exist in the first place.
810:
715:
691:
642:
600:
588:
516:
499:
376:
356:
57:
773:
listings of the TV series she's been in is not substantive coverage of her — it's
114:
1129:
1027:
907:
832:
827:
is the easiest way to show notability... it's not the only way. Meeting the SNG
733:
592:
572:
http://www.mediamikes.com/2013/03/blu-ray-review-inuyasha-the-final-act-set-1-2/
331:
877:
valid reliable sourcing — the only thing you get from it is a reduction in the
1155:
are examples of her coverage), she would still pass notability guidelines per
76:
68:
1121:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
498:
Notability for an actress is demonstrated by the presence in the article of
540:
910:
the accuracy of the assertion. She doesn't have to have made the cover of
555:
885:
the article with, and even then that reduction is still not to "zero".
1014:
requires verifiability of career and multiple significant roles...
1149:. While Tozer hasn't had a huge, overwhelming amount of coverage (
1018:
requires quantity of sources speaking toward the person. Meeting
1265:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
936:
There is no claim being made here about awards... that would be
596:
546:
http://www.dvdinform.cz/73089-intersonic-nova-vcelka-maja-2/
860:
Subject-specific inclusion guidelines do not constitute an
797:
get. Our notability requirements on here, however, require
373:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
629:
tells his own searches found enough to support his vote.
1220:
451:
I've searched and found absolutely nothing so fails GNG
110:
106:
102:
237:
174:
399:" is a pointless comment to make, The second states "
289:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 22
694:
is actually available — SB's sources are all either
637:
actually brought some forward as a means to support
1128:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
334:. I can probably find a few more sources to add. --
283:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
839:mandating GNG be met. If meeting the GNG were the
561:http://worldnewsbreakers.com/michael-daingerfield/
621:tells us he searched and could not find sources.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1279:). No further edits should be made to this page.
686:Yes, topic notability is demonstrated by the
401:I can probably find a few more sources to add
251:
188:
8:
1068:Note: This debate has been included in the
371:Note: This debate has been included in the
351:Note: This debate has been included in the
831:simply requires that certain attributes be
353:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
1067:
370:
350:
1070:list of Film-related deletion discussions
893:actors in existence can and regularly do
541:http://news.everfree.net/tag/kira-tozer/
714:sources either in the article or here.
973:of how the difference between passing
881:of valid reliable sources it takes to
556:http://www.ubcp.com/awards-submission/
313:The nominator isn't being specific. -
7:
52:. Subject satisfies requirements of
56:thereby endorsing keep consensus.
1026:, but meeting either does require
738:"Encyclopedia of Television Shows"
397:The nominator isn't being specific
24:
511:unless some sourcing improvement
1169:Barbie and the Three Musketeers
591:sources that would demonstrate
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1085:07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1022:does not mandate also meeting
856:09:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
819:06:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
805:, not just directory listings
765:06:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
724:17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
678:07:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
609:17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
583:05:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
525:21:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
490:18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
475:16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
444:16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
425:20:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
385:15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
365:15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
344:06:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
323:03:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
303:02:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
274:02:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
868:of it you need to provide to
587:None of those are acceptably
287:). I have transcluded it to
1167:(2012 reboot, 52 episodes),
1010:aside, it seems we agree...
801:coverage in which she's the
769:Her name being mentioned in
63:14:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
1258:06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
1236:08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
1204:05:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
1183:05:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
1138:02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
1109:00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
1047:08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
1003:18:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
965:09:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
932:18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
261:Non-notable voice actress.
1296:
595:— they're all non-notable
570:and an additional source:
1161:Hot Wheels Battle Force 5
1268:Please do not modify it.
742:"The Year in Television"
32:Please do not modify it.
1215:with grateful kudos to
981:is a question of how
746:"Television Specials"
645:... S.B. is correct.
823:Ah... while meeting
732:of her work can be
702:blog sources which
515:starts showing up.
946:Apples and Oranges
281:Automated comment:
48:The result was
1140:
1087:
387:
367:
330:Seems to satisfy
305:
1287:
1270:
1250:Metamagician3000
1228:
1200:
1179:
1127:
1123:
1077:
1039:
957:
848:
757:
670:
653:his unexplained
647:Topic notability
472:
464:
459:
422:
414:
409:
295:
279:
271:
265:
256:
255:
241:
193:
192:
178:
130:
118:
100:
60:
34:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1277:deletion review
1266:
1226:
1221:her work so far
1198:
1177:
1163:(54 episodes),
1116:
1075:
1037:
955:
846:
755:
710:ponies up some
692:reliable source
668:
500:reliable source
468:
460:
455:
429:Yes, I haven't
418:
410:
405:
301:
293:
269:
263:
198:
135:
134:Article title:(
126:
91:
75:
72:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1293:
1291:
1282:
1281:
1261:
1260:
1238:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1186:
1185:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1125:
1124:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1089:
1088:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
886:
784:that would be
700:user-generated
681:
680:
657:. However, as
614:
613:
612:
611:
568:
563:
558:
553:
548:
543:
537:
536:
528:
527:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
477:
389:
388:
368:
347:
346:
325:
315:FilmandTVFan28
307:
306:
299:
259:
258:
197:Alt spelling:(
195:
132:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1292:
1280:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1071:
1066:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
989:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
963:
962:
959:
958:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
900:
896:
892:
887:
884:
880:
876:
871:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
854:
853:
850:
849:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
787:
783:
779:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
763:
762:
759:
758:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
676:
675:
672:
671:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:reason beyond
648:
644:
640:
636:
635:Silver Buizei
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
575:Silver Buizel
573:
569:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
552:
549:
547:
544:
542:
539:
538:
533:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
501:
497:
491:
487:
483:
478:
476:
473:
471:
465:
463:
458:
452:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
432:
428:
427:
426:
423:
421:
415:
413:
408:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
304:
298:
296:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
266:
254:
250:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
204:
201:
200:Find sources:
196:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1267:
1264:
1241:
1240:On balance,
1231:
1224:
1212:
1197:
1176:
1165:Maya the Bee
1146:
1117:
1092:
1080:
1073:
1042:
1035:
990:
982:
977:and passing
970:
960:
953:
919:
915:
911:
903:
898:
894:
890:
882:
878:
874:
869:
865:
861:
851:
844:
840:
836:
807:namechecking
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
781:
780:coverage in
777:
770:
760:
753:
728:Well... the
711:
707:
703:
688:availability
687:
673:
666:
531:
512:
508:
505:Crunchy Roll
504:
469:
461:
456:
450:
430:
419:
411:
406:
400:
396:
392:
327:
310:
280:
260:
248:
242:
234:
227:
221:
215:
209:
199:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
123:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1246:Tokyogirl79
1217:Tokyogirl79
1194:Tokyogirl79
1173:Tokyogirl79
988:reliability
950:WP:GNGACTOR
920:directories
835:without it
799:substantive
782:directories
627:Rsrikanth05
482:Rsrikanth05
436:Rsrikanth05
395:per nom - "
336:Rsrikanth05
264:Orange Mike
225:free images
162:free images
875:constitute
833:verifiable
775:WP:ROUTINE
750:"TV Guide"
730:sheer body
665:, anyone?
663:WP:SOFIXIT
631:Fine again
593:notability
294:cyberbot I
77:Kira Tozer
69:Kira Tozer
1273:talk page
1227:Schmidt,
1157:WP:NACTOR
1097:WP:NACTOR
1076:Schmidt,
1038:Schmidt,
1020:WP:NACTOR
975:WP:NACTOR
956:Schmidt,
938:WP:ANYBIO
904:assertion
862:exemption
847:Schmidt,
778:namecheck
771:directory
756:Schmidt,
669:Schmidt,
619:Davey2010
535:provided:
377:• Gene93k
357:• Gene93k
54:WP:NACTOR
37:talk page
1275:or in a
1119:Relisted
1008:Examples
786:expected
734:verified
712:reliable
708:actually
617:Okay...
589:reliable
513:actually
431:bothered
121:View log
59:Philg88
39:or in a
1199:(｡◕‿◕｡)
1178:(｡◕‿◕｡)
1101:Tgeairn
995:Bearcat
971:example
944:. It's
924:Bearcat
811:Bearcat
803:subject
793:actors
716:Bearcat
696:primary
643:Bearcat
639:WP:NRVE
601:Bearcat
517:Bearcat
453:".... –
231:WP refs
219:scholar
168:WP refs
156:scholar
94:protect
89:history
1130:Tawker
1093:Delete
1024:WP:GNG
1016:WP:GNG
1012:WP:ENT
991:either
979:WP:GNG
942:WP:ENT
940:, not
916:People
908:verify
879:number
829:WP:ENT
825:WP:GNG
795:always
659:WP:BLP
655:WP:JNN
641:. And
509:Delete
470:(talk)
420:(talk)
393:Delete
300:Online
285:step 3
203:Google
140:Google
98:delete
1032:WP:RS
993:way.
895:claim
883:start
870:start
809:her.
704:don't
597:blogs
532:Keep.
457:Davey
407:Davey
311:Keep:
246:JSTOR
207:books
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
1254:talk
1244:per
1242:keep
1219:for
1213:Keep
1147:Keep
1134:talk
1105:talk
1028:WP:V
999:talk
983:many
928:talk
912:Time
899:seen
866:much
841:only
837:also
815:talk
736:...
720:talk
633:.
623:Fine
605:talk
579:talk
521:talk
486:talk
462:2010
440:talk
412:2010
381:talk
361:talk
340:talk
332:WP:N
328:Keep
319:talk
291:. —
270:Talk
239:FENS
213:news
176:FENS
150:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
50:keep
1223:.
1030:in
914:or
891:all
791:all
698:or
625:.
253:TWL
190:TWL
119:– (
1256:)
1248:.
1152:,
1136:)
1107:)
1072:.
1034:.
1001:)
930:)
922:.
817:)
748:,
744:,
740:,
722:)
607:)
581:)
523:)
488:)
480:--
466:•
442:)
434:--
416:•
383:)
375:.
363:)
355:.
342:)
321:)
267:|
233:)
170:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
1252:(
1132:(
1103:(
997:(
926:(
813:(
718:(
603:(
577:(
519:(
484:(
449:"
438:(
379:(
359:(
338:(
317:(
257:)
249:·
243:·
235:·
228:·
222:·
216:·
210:·
205:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
131:)
124:·
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.