Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Morgan (actress)


 * 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   keep.  Wifione  Message 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Morgan (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coupla things. The name 'Elizabeth Morgan' is semi-common; that she is sometimes referred to as 'Liz Morgan' can make it harder for us to identify good sources. For example, there may have been another actress by the same name (probably not the British actress -- an American one, died 1987). So I used this search string in the browser bar: "elizabeth morgan" OR "liz morgan" (actor? OR actress OR brit? OR shoulders OR thalidomide OR wiles OR scarlet OR mysterons), clicked on 'Images', and there was some consistency in images, maybe 5-10 of the same person. That is one way so we can get a sense of what she looks like, if we use a search string like that, since it has a greater likelihood of bringing in obscure mentions, hopefully not excluding good sources. What I've found is that clearly notable people often have lots of photos of themselves, particularly in the entertainment industry, and while of course this is not a formal wiki-test of notability, I sometimes use it to get a sense of whether a person is notable, so in this regard, the paucity of consistent images is a sign to me that she's not notable. Another unofficial sign: so-so pageviews (that is, relative to other entertainment types). I searched 10 SERP pages, didn't find much, although there was a listing in a BBC piece.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Longtime performer and voice actress who is listed by the British Film Institute as both Liz Morgan (28 credits in 1967–68 {including a regular role in the cult TV series Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons}, 1991 and 1993) and Elizabeth Morgan here (81 credits between 1965 and 1996) and here (8 credits between 1975 and 1991). IMDb gives Elizabeth Morgan (including her billing as Liz Morgan) 104 credits in 41 TV series as well as in a couple of films. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt she has had a long career, multiple roles, including as a voice actor, but there is little written about her. Like, what do we say in the Wikipedia article on her? That she was in umpteen shows? That's about all we can say. Here is the wording from the GNG that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I did not find that. That is really what is needed here: multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth/Liz Morgan has not had the career of a star or even a major supporting performer and, it seems at first glance, has not had much written about her, but neither was she a bit player or an extra. In fact, virtually all of her credits provide her with on-screen billing. Although she has been a relatively minor actress, such status is analogous to that of hundreds of other such actors whose Wikipedia entries have little more than a one-line description and a list of credits. Of course, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but in this circumstance, so much other such stuff exists that it would be counterintuitive to single out Elizabeth Morgan (actress) for deletion. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate notability established.  Montanabw (talk)  04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Montanabw, in what way do you think WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG is met? I can't see any suggestion of this from article, the only reference in the article (the unreliable IMDB) or the comments above. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Roman Spinner, I think adequate notability is established under GNG. NACTOR is a guideline, not a bright line rule.   Montanabw (talk)  19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Jim-Siduri has now been banned for being unconstructive, and has given no reason for writing 'keep'. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not as of when I am writing, I don't see any evidence of a block, let alone a ban. People don't have to give a reason, though not doing so may mean their views get less weight.   Montanabw (talk)  22:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As &mdash;Roman Spinner. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in documentary Filmed in Supermarionation and Newsnight of 11 January 2013 is enough for GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC).


 * 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.