Talk:Casey Mongillo

Contested deletions per CSD G4 on 27 October 2019

Please note I am grouping these contested deletion topics. When the AFD discussion resulted in delete on 27 October 2019, the page was not deleted. Instead it was reinstated by admins on 3 November 2019 per this conversation [1]. These Contested deletion topics were in response to the CSD G4s posted on 27 October 2019. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Per CSD G4 by WanderingWanda on 27 October 2019 [2], undid by 2600:6c50:7f:7121:a59e:51aa:ed65:f33b [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... There doesn't seem to be any actual reason re: Wikipedia guidelines. This is one of many casualties of a handful of troll users who work together on deleting any voice actor they don't like or haven't heard of, as can be attested by reading their submission history. The S (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to request a deletion review, you can follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. (Please read the criteria and instructions carefully beforehand.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, that didn't happen, so now we have this mess. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Per CSD G4 by Sk8erPrince on 27 October 2019 [4]. Undid by Lord Roem on 3 November 2019. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because the simple fact it is being contested demonstrates Casey has enough notoriety that many would aim to keep her page up. Many of whom are well-known professionals within the same industry Casey works in, with their own pages. Dislike of someone's portrayal of a character over a previous actor is also a frankly childish reason to fish for excuses to delete someone's page, and then hide behind those loopholes to justify your temper tantrum. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.176.126 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because non imdb sources wp:rs https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2017/08/12-1/new-gundam-seed-and-gundam-seed-destiny-dub-in-the-works https://www.polygon.com/2019/6/21/18693526/neon-genesis-evangelion-netflix-redub-cast https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/netflix-has-upset-evangelion-fans-are-with-changes-to-the-series.html
--2605:E000:C990:1500:E9EC:F437:246:FCBC (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Contested deletion per CSD G4 on 3 November 2019

Please note I am grouping the contested deletion topics in response to CSD G4 on 3 November 2019 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The page clearly fails the proposed CSD criteria it's being tagged under. I discussed the matter with the admin who closed the AfD who consented the page's recreation. This is the recommended practice that Deletion Review sets out before opening an appeal there. Additional sources have been added that help demonstrate the subject clearly meets WP:ENT which is the criterion for notability. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no solid proof of this. Why don't you let WP:DRV decide if your claims are truly founded? As it is right now, I fail to see how the new revision is any different than the deleted revision. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

DRV sets out that deletion closes should be first discussed with the closing admin before filed, as "there could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed." With the closer's consent, a DRV is not needed at this time, but it'd be appropriate for another AfD if that's what you'd like to do.

I fundamentally fail to see how the WP:ENT standard is not met here - the talent at issue "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." We have an article from Vice and TV Guide about their performance. They were in the arguably most important anime dub of the last decade, were in Red Dead Redemption, and Mob Psycho 100, all of which are not just significant titles within this field, but they held named, serious roles. I have yet to see a solid argument that wouldn't also undercut the existence of every other voice actor article, since voice actors are usually not given coverage; but this actress was an exception, making deletion all the more strange. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If WP:ENT were met, then why was the article deleted in the first place? Aside from Shinji Ikari, I don't see any other roles that particularly stand out. You literally restored the article and used one of your admin tools to do it without *consensus*. Possibly out of WP:COI bias, too. Only the Vice article had significant coverage. The TV Guide one? Nah, that ain't it. Just a few mentions. That's not WP:SIGCOV. Are you somehow implying that Jojo had the wrong impression about the subject? Cuz all the sources were already analyzed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from casting aspersions. You're also not responding to my actual argument, which is that there are other significant roles in addition to NGE that demonstrate a clear need for inclusion. The closing admin gave the green light to restore the page, which is functionally the equivalent of undoing their closure on the AfD. If you'd like to bring it back to AfD, you're more than free. I feel like you're setting the bar bizarrely high when the guidelines don't require it for voice talent. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion request, per the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion for CSD G4 on 4 November 2019

Please note I am grouping these contested deletion topics under the one for CSD G4 on 4 November 2019. Result is that CSD has been declined. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

CSD Again

WP:GNG and WP:ENT are still not being met. No new news articles have been presented since October 27 closure of AFD as delete. There is only the role in Neon Genesis Evangelion redub that is sufficiently covered by RS. Please indicate the news articles that show otherwise on the second role.

Please also show the WP:DRV discussion that resulted in reopening this page. I don't see it. I only see new discussion from its re-creation, which is similar to the version that got deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This CSD was canceled due to the previous oldcsd posted and declined. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

WTH? There are two WP:AFDs, one of which is open right now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC) WTH? This has been the subject of TWO WP:AFDs, one of which is ongoing. You are attempting to preempt that? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, this is because there was no previous CSD G4 posted. Now there is one properly listed so AFD can resume. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. What part of Casey Mongillo don't you get?

2nd nomination which is ongoing. Casey Mongillo Attempted Speedy deletion which I contested. I have no idea what is going on. They are out in force, but you will have to figure it out on your own 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, the procedure should have been:

• Article deleted
• DRV is posted
• Arguments and information posted to convince admin to reopen article
• After a few days, admin restores article

Instead, we have this mess where the article was NEVER deleted properly, prompting me to issue CSD G4 when I noticed the article was restored in the same quality as the deleted version. A complete mess of not following procedures at all. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your preemptorily trying to get around the new AFD (with a Speed Deletion no less) and the pending ANI thread was misguided. This is not the forum to discuss this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, no I'm not trying to bypass AFD. I'm trying to cite what I saw and did when this article popped up again in AFC / NPP review. It was supposedly deleted on 27 October. Why the heck is it a new article again and in the same state as when it was deleted? Why no CSD G4 before? So I apply CSD G4, and it's rejected. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, okay, I've added {{oldcsd}} to this page. This should have been done earlier. Then I wouldn't have wasted your and my time with a second CSD G4. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:AngusWOOF Apparently you are as confused as me. I WP:AGF. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, I'm following the threads of how this became undone now. Hopefully this is organized better so it makes sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Two AfDs in a row certainly strikes me as very odd procedurally. (When the last RM I was in was contested, the closer unclosed the discussion to let more people participate, then a new closer re-closed.) WanderingWanda (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Huffington Post interview

As discussed in the AfDs, the Huffington Post interview was conducted by a "contributor" and therefore isn't a reliable source per WP:RSP. By a strict reading of WP:BLP it should therefore, technically, be removed, but I hesitate because I think it's a pretty interesting interview, and I found that Mongillo promoted it on Twitter, so I don't have much fear that the interviewer maliciously made up quotes or anything like that. I decided to leave it be per WP:IAR, but I wouldn't object if someone else decided to remove it. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, I would change the citation to {{cite interview}} format, as it is mainly a Q&A article so it would be a primary source. Agreed that it wouldn't count towards RS / notability, but neither would all the Tweets posted to the article either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do. I know it wouldn't count towards notability, I was more concerned about it being against WP:BLP. (WP:RSP says to treat HuffPost contributors as "self-published", and WP:BLPSPS says not to use self-published sources, unless written or published by the subject of the article... which isn't *exactly* the case here – Mongillo didn't "write" it or "publish" it. But it quotes Mongillo directly and Mongillo promoted the interview, so to me it's similar to a source that the subject published themself.) WanderingWanda (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion any source not known to regularly fabricate quotes can be used for someone's statements about him/herself. Cheers, gnu57 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Spy-cicle has removed the HuffPost reference, so I removed the entire paragraph since there's no point in listing a quote that is coming from the interview if that interview can't be cited. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry this is late but I removed this source per WP:BLPRS since this HuffPost contributor's are deemed unreliable. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

AngusWOOF - quick question, why can't we cite the Huffingtonpost article? I understand that an interview with the person is not necessarily good as evidence of notability, but surely it's OK to cite it for basic facts about themselves, right? We already have extensive citations to their twitter feed/social media comments which are even less WP:RS than an interview with a major and reliable newspaper/online magazine. Omanlured (talk)

Omanlured, the social media ones are posted by Casey so they fall under WP:SELFPUB and aren't counting towards any notability anyway. They aren't exceptional claims either. This would be much like if Casey had an interview on Daily Mail so best to not go there, and find either a more direct interview from a RS or another SELFPUB like an AMA thread on Reddit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: - I get that it doesn't count towards establishing notability, but I'm talking about using an interview as a source for facts in an article. I'm having a hard time understanding why it is OK to use Twitter/social media sources for facts about Mongillo but not OK to use a Huffington Post interview with them. Omanlured (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• You can use it as a reliable source in the article, it an interview done with the person. Dream Focus 18:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: @AngusWOOF: - Thanks for the clarification! Much appreciated! Omanlured (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Birthday

According to Twitter https://twitter.com/CaseyTheVA, Casey's birthday is October 22, but the year is not specified, so need an external news article that lists their age to have that be in the article or a tweet from Mongillo that says that today is their birthday and states their age. That Mongillo did not publish their full DOB there implies that they might have some objection per WP:BLPPRIVACY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly but I don't see the issue with publishing the month/day of the birthday without the year. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda, AngusWOOF, and Jancarcu: OK, so we appear to have October 22 confirmed as the month and day. After a bit of digging, I was able to find some tangential evidence to support a year of birth. Mongillo had the following interaction on Twitter on December 22, 2019:

TheDoctor19901: "@CaseyTheVA how in the world are you 32???? You look like maybe 16! What it's your secret" [sic]

CaseyTheVA: "never leaving the house"

At least from my POV this seems to be an indirect confirmation that on that date, Mongillo was 32 years of age, and with a birth date of October 22 confirmed as mentioned before, this leads to a birth year of 1987, although I'm not sure if for the purposes of putting it in the article that is satisfactory enough of a source to go on. On another note related to something mentioned earlier, I was not able to determine if there are any issues related to BLPPRIVACY. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

HapHaxion, I'm not sure if that's a good enough confirmation. It's more dodging the question. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Mongillo doesn't confirm anything. It's important to remember that no article *needs* a birthdate. (Actually, I'm beginning to question why BLPs ever include them, as the potential for misuse is high and the value to readers is low, but that's a conversation for another venue.) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits by IP user(s)

Recently, IP user(s) have made edits to this page that were reverted by other users. Given that the IP user(s) have not tried to use the talk page to resolve the dispute, I thought that it might be productive to open a conversation here to discuss the situation.

The IP user(s) in question, User:71.9.90.177 and an IPv6 user in the 2600:6c50:480:200f range—both from the vicinity of Glendale, CA—appear to be WP:single purpose accounts who mostly edit this article. Other than this unusual edit, the controversial edits are generally positive towards the subject. The user(s) have failed to use the talk page or other productive means to resolve the content dispute. This is potentially WP:NOTHERE behaviour, and arouses suspicion of some sort of WP:COI given the single-purpose nature of the IP users. As such, I suggest that the user(s) familiarize themselves with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Optionally, they could also get into named accounts, which would make discussion easier, avoid confusion from dynamic IP addresses, and also offer additional privacy.

The changes made by the users are, in my opinion, not completely unreasonable or far-fetched. Thus, I think it might be useful to discuss the edits to decide the extent to which they should be integrated into this article.

Potential edit #1: summarizing praise in career section as critical acclaim

The edit to this effect was made by the IPv6 user in this diff.

Original: Mongillo is best known for portraying lead character Shinji Ikari in the Netflix English dub of Neon Genesis Evangelion in 2019 and also played Shou Suzuki in the dub of the anime Mob Psycho 100.

Edited: Mongillo is best known for portraying lead character Shinji Ikari in the Netflix English dub of Neon Genesis Evangelion in 2019, for which they received critical acclaim. They also played Shou Suzuki in the dub of the Mob Psycho 100 anime.

The reversal of the word order between Mob Psycho 100 and anime seems like it was intended to implicitly clarify that the work that Mx. Mongillo participated in was, in fact, an anime adaptation of a manga rather than expressly an anime. (Ergo, Mob Psycho 100 becomes a modifier on the word anime.) I think that this is a perfectly innocuous good-faith change; thus, I have already integrated an edit in the same spirit as said modification into the article, though with different wording. The use of the singular they is also an unobjectionable choice per MOS:IDENTITY.

The mention of critical acclaim, on the other hand, merits more discussion. I think it is a potentially acceptable choice, given that MOS:LEAD tells us to summarize the article using the lead, and the career section does mention some praise from third party sources for the subject's voice performance. The question, then, is whether summarizing the praise as critical acclaim is warranted, since it could also potentially be WP:OR or WP:UNDUE. Since no secondary source has summarized the critical response to Mx. Mongillo's performance, prominently summarizing the consensus of critics as being positive seems undue and potentially WP:SYNTH. I hope someone more well versed in editorial norms will be able to help resolve this dilemma.

Potential edit #2: addition of Allister and Haunter (Twilight wings) to Mongillo's filmography for Pokémon

The edit to this effect was made by the IPv6 user in this diff.

I think this is a reasonable change. Per WP:ABOUTSELF and the perennial sources list, the citation of a person's Twitter postings is sufficient for non-controversial statements about the person himself. In my view, the voice actor's own statement that they voiced a few characters in an anime series is not sufficiently controversial to require a secondary source, even on a BLP page. Jancarcu (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

I'd like to edit this page to add Mongillo's role in the game Bugsnax. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_iA7uUfUTY Cleffa!73 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)