Talk:Kellie Shanygne Williams

Notability

I placed tags on the article for notability and BLPunsourced. Another editor added two, unreliable sources (Who's Dated Who and a fanpage). When I removed these, the editor asked, "Added references, removed unreferenced BLP She's got a lot of google hits, starred in a National Network TV series still on air. Why are you trying to make it seem like she is worthy of deletion?"

It's pretty simple, really. Had this article been created after 18 March 2010, I would have tagged it PROD BLP. Unless reliable sources were added in 7 days, the article would have been deleted. Articles created prior to that date will fall under a similar policy at some future date, once we decide how to get past all the animosity created by putting up a HUGE number of articles for deletion at one time.

At present, NO topic is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, Williams would generally be presumed to be notable based on starring in "a National Network TV series" (whether it's "still on the air" or not). However, without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, she would not be notable.

This is an article on a living person. For serious legal reasons, Wikipedia takes sourcing on these articles very seriously. Sourcing to Who's Dated Who (with little oversight) or a fansite will not cut it. Filler sources (TVguide and an AllMediaGuide mirror) showing that yes, she had roles in shows don't do much either.

This leaves http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/family-matters-kellie-shanygne-williams-getting-married/, which is a blog, not a reliable source in any way. It sources Williams wedding plans to http://www.weddingwire.com/. Weddingwire.com, for what it's worth, allows ANYONE to create a webpage for "their" wedding. To my knowledge, the claim that Williams married this guy on whatever date is not controversial in any way, so I'll add that as a source for the date of the wedding. Other than that, though, the article is basically a pile of biographical "data" that apparently fell out of the sky.

Immediately after this post, I'll see what I can find and take whatever action the sources seem to demand. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets start with IMDB. OK, I know some people here seem to THINK its unreliable. As a result they have used that excuse to unnecessarily keep many of these, so called, unreferenced BLPs listed as unreferenced. Well, IMDB is the primary database for entertainment industry people--by denying its results, you have created a good percentage of this backlog. So we have to fall to secondary, lesser sources. Guess what? The secondary sources duplicate the information in the article. That is called corroboration. That confirms the accuracy of IMDB. That confirms the accuracy of the Wikipedia article in question. Go ahead and read this article. Is there anything libelous or even contentious here? No. Just, essentially, a very limited article listing credits including starring in a TV series seen on a MAJOR BROADCAST network. Had that been a fraud, yes maybe it could be a serious issue. But then there are the Fansites and blogs. Do you seriously think anybody would be able to generate this much interest if they were not, in fact, a celebrity? You can shoot holes through any ONE of these sources. You cannot deny that as a whole this indicates all of this information is legitimate and credible. It actually confirms the system. Denying all this indicates an unreasonable intent to unnecessarily target this article, or any other similar article for potential deletion.Trackinfo (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate that IMDb is not a reliable source. Nevertheless, IMDb is not a reliable source. Biographical information in IMDb is user submitted. However, the fact that IMDb is not reliable does not mean we must "fall to secondary, lesser sources". (IMDb is a "lesser, tertiary source" as those user submissions are likely drawing their info from blogs, fansites, half-remembered conversations from some guy selling popcorn at a late night screening, etc.) Whatever you may feel about its reliability or the possible inconvenience of it being unreliable, IMDb is not reliable.

Instead, we must "fall to" reliable sources. I've handled more than a few articles like this. One of two things frequently happens. On the one hand, sources that you are likely to agree are reliable (say, biographical info confirmed by the subject in an interview with Rolling Stone or an article in the New York Times) pop up (sometimes contradicting IMDb). The second frequent scenario? Virtually nothing in the article is verifiable and extensive research from numerous editors fails to bring the article above the stub stage. Blogs, forum postings IMDb, fansites drawing on information from god-alone-knows-where,... none of them help.

Is there anything contentious here? Nothing obvious, no. But this is a biography of a living person. Things pop up. Maybe that anonymous guy she supposedly married is someone notorious. Maybe the birthdate is wrong and, combined with her statements elsewhere cause problems. We don't know unless/until it pops up. The only solution is citing reliable sources. That needs to be clear. If we cannot find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to create a reasonably detailed article, we should not have an article. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kellie Shanygne Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512183430/http://kelliewilliamsprograms.com/ to http://www.kelliewilliamsprograms.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)