Talk:Lorna Balfour

Updating Revisions & Citations
I'm not the original creator of this article but I noticed the creator was having issues with references so I helped to find some better ones and clean up the writing on their draft based on the sources I found. I used wiki’s guidelines for notability, BLP, and reliable sources while editing.

@Stwalkerster Thanks so much for your contributions! You made some edits and notes on notability and BLP based on the sources so I wanted to add clarity here for some of the sources that I provided or edited. It looks like the article isn’t “unsourced” the source for the Emmy Award winners just had link rot. I went ahead and repaired that link and added back the info regarding the Emmy win. I also updated some of the additional sources in the article to better ones I found while updating everything :) Elbe202 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * right, let me take another stab at this, and I'm afraid I'm going to be pretty damning in this one. Firstly, and possibly least importantly, the short description should be very short, a few words summarising the subject. Good examples would include "Heritage railway", "Canadian actor", etc. My suggestion here would be "American journalist" or (if there's sourcing for it) "American journalist and actress".Secondly, there is zero sourcing for the roles in Everwood, Touched by an Angel, High School Musical 3, Hatching Pete. If it's not sourced, we shouldn't be including it in the article.Another point is the claim that Balfour won an Emmy when the sourcing for this actually says she was on a team of nearly four hundred people by rough count seems very disingenuous at best. We must make the clarification that she was on the team that won it if we mention it at all - and I'm of the opinion here that this is such a tenuous link (given the sheer number of people on the team) that it's unlikely to really confer any notability at all here.Finally, we come to sourcing, which for this article is quite frankly terrible. None of the sources are usable to show notability. Most of the sources aren't independent of the subject, and those that are don't have anything close to significant coverage. I've covered this in brief in the table below, but this should (again in my opinion) have never made it to being a live article and probably should be deleted. Balfour doesn't appear to meet either our general notability guideline, nor our specific notability guideline for creative professionals.


 * So, unless we manage to find some radically better sourcing, I'm considering nominating this article for deletion. stwalkerster (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)