Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Kinkade

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn.. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Kinkade

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Amelia Kinkade (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)

The sourcing for this biography is extremely poor. Not a reliable or independent source in sight, and I didn't find any through Google either. The subject is not notable if only her own website has written about her. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC, albeit a bit reluctantly for this arguably WP:FRINGEBLP. I see a fair amount of newspaper coverage: [1], [2] (more on ProQuest). Her books have also been reviewed in mainstream sources: [3], [4] (the latter for a Korean translation). I expect there'd be more on Newspapers.com, but I still have to wait a few months before I'm eligible for the WP library subscription … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has had some notable acting roles as the lead in the first three movies in Night of the Demons series, so comes very close to, if not passing WP:ENT. Most of RS coverage available seems to be about her being a "pet psychic." She has received SIGCOV to pass the GNG in my view. More newspaper coverage in addition to those mentioned in the AFD and already in the article. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenAgeFan1 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC) GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added several sources to the article, and will be adding more. I believe the article as it stands passes both the GNG and WP:NACTOR. Nost of thsese sources could and should have been cited long ago. It is true that most of them do not show up on a basic google search. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: "A first-rate guide for those who wish to talk to animals", says the PW review. I've no need for this: I too can talk to animals! And as I confirmed just five minutes ago, I can also talk to a bottle of sesame oil. Neither the bottle nor the oil understands me any less than the animals do (zero); but hey, I can talk all I like. ¶ However, Kinkade doesn't just talk. Rather, she -- but what does she do? From the NYT: ¶ "Ms. Kinkade could be on the brink of becoming the nation's first celebrity pet communicator. She appeared in a television pilot, communing with Tammy Faye Bakker's dog." ¶ And from PW (quoting a bit more than what's currently in the article): ¶ "She has communed with horses, dogs, cats, birds [...]. [H]er book is primarily a guide to becoming an animal communicator [...]. A first-rate guide for those who wish to talk to animals, this book may not satisfy readers who primarily enjoy stories of human-animal communion." ¶ I realize that both the NYT and PW are normally regarded as reliable sources. But I find each of these particular sources confused. Their fault, or mine? If theirs, is it OK to ignore this and quote anyway? -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hoary: You mean the apparent confusion between communication and communion? If so, perhaps the answer lies in the fact that there is no obvious personal nominalisation of "communion". "Communer", maybe? But that rings so oddly in my ears (and, I imagine, in others') that perhaps the Grey Lady & co decided to go with the less apt but also less odd-sounding "communicator". Though, now that I think of it, it's not clear whether horse-whispering and the like are meant to constitute communication or communion. Plausibly both, as perhaps this odd language reveals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hoary: I can call spirits from the vasty deep / Why so can I or so can any man. But do they come when you do call for them." -Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part 1 Act 3 Scene 1 Apparently Kinkade claims that the various animals respond with comprehensible emotions and images -- comprehensible to her at least. As for "commune" the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines "commune with" as to share your emotions and feelings with someone or something without speaking; to be in close spiritual contact with someone or something and the Free Dictionary defines it as talk to, communicate with, discuss with, confer with, converse with, discourse with, parley with 'You can now commune with people from the safety of your PC. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I confess to having been ignorant of the meaning of commune: I'd thought it had something to do with Christianity, which wasn't obviously relevant; and Wiktionary, the dictionary I happened to look into, didn't suggest to me that it meant "communicate". But if the Free Dictionary suggests that the two verbs can be synonymous, then wobbling between the two seems unobjectionable, other perhaps than from stylistic considerations. Certainly if I'd just read an entire book by somebody claiming to commun(icat)e with animals, my own mind (and idiolect) would be hopelessly scrambled. -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Communion" or "Holy Communion" is an important sacrament in most versions of Christianity, but that is a noun, and is not used as the verb "commune". The verb forms are "take communion" and "give communion". The words "commune", "communion", and 'communicate" all have a common root, of course. I think in the cited sources "commune" is being used in more the sense give in the OLD above, "to share emotions and feelings with someone or something without speaking". Kinkade claims, it seems to share such emotions and images with animals, and thereby to communicate with them. The image in my mind is that of the Vulcan Mind Meld from Star Trek; no doubt Kinkade would find that image disrespectful. At any rate I think this explains the quoted sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Press coverage from Publishers Weekly, The New York Times and Chicago Tribune means it's a keep. I agree with Hoary about the sesame oil. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article now clearly passes NACTOR, with a major role in the three "Demons" films, and a number of smaller roles documented in sources. I think the GNG is also clearly passed, with the coverage both as an actor and as a "pet psychic". Passage of NAUTHOR might be more marginal, but there are reviews from significant sources. If that were the only claim of notability this might not pass, but it isn't. Bishonen, no one but you has favored deletion here, and the article was rather different when you nominated it. Would you care to re-asses it now, and perhaps reconsider your view? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amelia_Kinkade&oldid=978430900"