Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Ripley


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Heather Ripley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A dispute between a new account who claims to be a relative of this former actress and other editors of the article was brought to WP:ANI here, where the point was made that there are questions about the notability of the subject, insofar as her appearance in the film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was about the only thing of note to have occurred for her (making it WP:BLP1E). Everything since then, whilst sourced, is just the ordinary type of things that people do in adult life. Community input on to whether Ms Ripley needs an article here rather than a paragraph in the film's article is sought. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article’s creator. The subject is internationally famous, admittedly as a child actor. Readers of the article want to know what has happened to her since the film. Certainly, her subsequent life has been more interesting than that of her co-star Adrian Hall (actor), whose stub article has not been nominated for deletion. However, I am not opposed to a bit of pruning if other editors think some of the information is too personal. For myself, everything quoted is backed by reliable sources and are Ripley’s own words. Jack1956 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to me to meet our notability criteria and to be properly sourced and cited.  Tim riley  talk   19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Tim Riley. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  21:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fails WP:NACTOR but passes WP:GNG. Several in-depth articles specifically about her is enough (including The Guardian 24 Feb 2002 and The Times 2 Jan 2005), and there's more coverage above that.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily passes WP:GNG while her extensive coverage in such broadsheets as The Guardian, The Times and the BBC website among others shows she remains notable. Dreamspy (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is adequate coverage of this subject, as many reporters and others are interested in the former child actor's later life. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete After removal of apparent original research and tabloid-style coverage, this appears to be WP:BLP1E and a WP:GNG fail for a low-profile individual who has primarily received non-independent interview-based coverage since her one film role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I see plenty of non-interview sources in the article. There is a difference between an interview and a profile. Mlb96 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has reliable sources and appears notable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would agree with the arguments above, especially as the subject has attracted a reasonable level coverage in the media over the years. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is enough substantial coverage to show lasting notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2022 (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.