Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Coppock (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  09:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Laurel Coppock
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was deleted via AfD in 2013. She has not gained much notability since, did not star in any significant roles (appearing in a few Toyota commercials do not count as "significant"), won or been nominated for any major awards, nor got notable coverage. Still does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The ostensible sources in the article are simple cast lists namedropping the subject, or otherwise reviewing TV eps or commercials she was in, without providing significant coverage to the subject. Beyond that, the nom's cogent reasoning and that of the editors in the prior AfD, there's an element of "what the hell?" in this. The article was recreated post-deletion virtually with the same text by the original creator, User:Truthanado (at some point, restoring the prior history), belying his pious statement in the first AfD of "I'll abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides ..."  On his user page, the creator invites trout slaps if he acts out of line.  I think the recreation in the teeth of unanimous consensus against him earns one.   Ravenswing      17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will gladly accept the trout slap if the Wikipedia Community believes that I deserve one. For reference, and consideration by the community ...
 * Following WP:BOLD (one of the most important Wikipedia guidelines), I originally created the article in October 2013. A deletion discussion was held and the article was deleted as failing to satisfy WP:N. Several years later, I drafted updates to the original article (I had saved a copy) and consulted with several Wikipedians who believed that the article DID then satisfy WP:N, so I released the updated article. Now, it is again being suggested for deletion. Things change, and although Laurel Coppock may not have been notable eight years ago, she may be notable now. There are, undoubtedly, several persons that are not notable now that become notable later in life. For clarification, she has starred as 'Jan' in most Toyota commercials over the past several years, much more than "a few"; plus many other roles. Truthanado (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had looked at the differences, which were nearly identical in every particular. As far as the "several Wikipedians" go, I'd be happy if we heard from them ... but for my money, the two editors who promptly filed speedies, the several who advocated deletion in the prior AfD, the nom in this one and myself, that's a lot of voices, and other than you, no dissenter is on record. As to whether the subject has gained notability since, she may have? You're far too experienced an editor for that.  She either is or she isn't. I believe she isn't: the "many other roles" you claim existed over the last several years consist of seven single-episode appearances over eight years, which falls far short of any notability criteria covering actors.  Either come up with concrete, reliable sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, or let it go.   Ravenswing      19:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe she is notable and that the article satisfies WP:N; that's why I created it. The Laurel Coppock article is similar to the Stephanie Courtney article (similar persons in similar roles), which has not been questioned. There are many articles in Wikipedia with questionable notability, in particular music articles ... is it notable that a now-defunct group released a single that sold 1000 copies, probably mostly to their friends? As an experienced member of the Wikipedia community, I believe in letting the community decide what is notable or not, and I thank the community for its comments. Truthanado (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: The articles are not at all similar. The Courtney article has in-depth coverage of the subject from the Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, People, the New York Times ... and likely a dozen more could be whisked up at the drop of a search; of course there's been no question about it.  What you have, by contrast, for the Coppock article is a single paragraph (the article, in fact, is about her mother) from her hometown weekly and a couple of automotive blog sites, one which doesn't even mention her name. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, of course, an utterly discredited argument: if you've seen articles that you don't feel are notable, take them to AfD.   Ravenswing      18:44, 11 July 2021 (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.