Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Stodghill

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Stodghill

Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results.[1] Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.

• Delete per nomination JackO'Lantern 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. She was probably an extra in the shows which is why she gets no credit. 51 Google hits and half of those were a different Alexis Stodghill. Montco 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable. Fan1967 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless having the world's most injudicious stage parents qualifies you as notable. Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. Monicasdude 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and per nom. --Terence Ong 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• First 1. Fact is is that television actors are not put onto IMDB unless they have appeared in a movie as well. Read IMDB's acrticle on submission, MANY television actors are not on IMDB.

Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.

Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?

Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.

The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.

I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.

Vanity that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).

• • For the record, if you wrote that Ahston Kutcher was the worst actor in the world, it would turn up on a google search.... Oh, and Dakota Fanning is not exactly an extra.... JackO'Lantern 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding your opinion: "If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little." Wikipedia has a clearly stated policy (WP:V) that is exactly the opposite. If you cannot prove (or PROOVE) notability, there's no reason to assume it's true. All sorts of wannabe musicians, models, actors want articles here to promote themselves. An actor not listed in IMDB is suspect to say the least. Fan1967 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JackO'Lantern , this may come as a surprise, but Dakata Fanning was in 6 independant movies before she "hit it big" AND 2 commercials ! (Do you think they just pulled her out of daycare?)

I suggest you go see the website in question, you'll see a girl in a picture with THE casting director for Palmetto Pointe, PRACTICING LINES.

The FACT is, she HAS been on TV, she HAS been in independant movies, she WILL be in more commercials.

The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justadding (talk • contribs).

• I offer no opinion except that the person I've nominated for deletion has no IMDB entry and next to no Google results. It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject). Of course, at some point in time, Dakota Fanning would not have been notable enough to list. But that changed circa 2000. JackO'Lantern 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject)."

That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).

• I would like to remind Justadding (talk • contribs) that he/she remember to sign in before posting, and sign all posts with 4 tildes. Posting from multiple accounts in an AfD debate is frowned upon. Thatcher131 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luvcraft 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not yet notable. Even if notable, not verifiable. Thatcher131 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Vanity Funky Monkey 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per funky monkey -- pm_shef 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Vanity User:Birdflu2006 User 65.184.17.216 claims to be both the CD that cast Alexis Stodghill AND her father, per comments above.
• Delete per nom, vanity. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.

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.