Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Pulver


 * 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. John254 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lara Pulver

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:COI bot identified this as possible conflict of interest. SPA calling itself "Lara Pulver" started the article. Article fails notability for entertainers. This actress has not had a sufficient number of significant roles. She was nominated for one award she did not receive, and that was for her most significant role, which lasted only two months. Article is also severely lacking in WP:RS. A link to a CV is not going to be enough here. This person may become notable in the future, but does not yet meet WP standards. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I independently established that she was, in fact, nominated for an Olivier award (roughly equivalent to a Tony in the UK).  A quick Google search shows her to be the subject of multiple, independent articles from reliable sources.   That's notable and verifiable enough for me.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Strong keep, COI notwithstanding, passes [WP:N] - there are multiple independent sources. and I recognise deletionist tendencies in myself, but I think this actor falls just the right side of the [WP:M] guidelines. Weak on multiple independent sources. Springnuts (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is true that the creator of this page was called "Lara Pulver", being a theatre professional in the UK I identified the subject as notable and subsequently did a complete re-write of the article. The message above states that Pulver has not performed enough significant roles to be notable, but there are numerous independent articles about various major roles she has performed, particularly in West End musicals and national tours.  The message above also questions the notability of a nomination for an Olivier Award, which suggests to me a lack of knowledge of British theatre, where even a nomination for an Olivier is viewed as a prestigious honour, the Awards being the UK equivalent of Broadway's Tony Awards. I do feel that the tagging of the article was to a degree, malicious, because the person who tagged it had previously deleted much of the information that I added, then tagged the article for deletion after I restored much of that text Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No degree of malice on anyone's behalf from what I read. Provide sources and the material will be left in - see WP:V.  Qworty removed unsourced material - that is simply good basic editing.  I hope the article stays, now that it is sourced.  Springnuts (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I admit I may have misread the intention of the tagging, but I thought it was the spirit of Wikipedia that editors work together to improve the content. I think more emphasis should be made on experienced editors giving assistance to others.  In this case, content was deleted as not-notable, without any explanation or advice on how to improve the article to meet wikipedia standards.  Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note-- its also the spirit of Wikipedia to be bold. If we waited around for consensus for every bit of editting, this encyclopedia would never progress.  Please take a look at WP:BLP for more information on why we tend to be even bolder when working with biographies of living persons. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Olivier Award nom does it for me. (And kudos to those who have expanded the article in the last couple of months -- good job!) --Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Anybody who's been nominated for an Olivier is more notable than 99% of the people listed on the Wiki. (I mean that literally.) Robert Greer (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as expanded, the subject is highly notable and the article illustrates that fairly well. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely notable and if there's a WP:COI concern then there's a very simple solution: WP:BOLD. (And last time I looked - which was awhile ago - there was no prohibition on subjects creating their own articles; at least there's less chance of Ms. Pulver becoming upset that there's a Wiki article about her, unlike that movie producer who tried to get his taken down a couple weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (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.