Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Hodges


 * 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. Courcelles 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Hodges

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Subject Subject or close aquaintance has requested deletion via OTRS submitting that they do not qualify under WP:ENT. I must admit it is difficult to find sources to support notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ENT (significant roles in notable film/TV). Notable movies include The Architect, The Adjustment Bureau. Notable television includes Rubicon, In Treatment. My feeling is that the subject is notable enough for an article. It's a young article that is still in the process of being improved. That being said, the subject's personal wishes should be given serious consideration. If the closing administrator decides to delete the article, I request that it be userfied in preparation for a possible deletion review case at some future date. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommend for deletion. Its hard to argue that someone who has never been mentioned in any newspaper article or TV newscast is notable. Just because someone appeared on TV doesn't make them famous (or give you the right to post stuff about them on wikipedia over their objections). Let it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.53.185 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She has been mentioned in a newspaper article (source). Also, with so much vandalism and sock activity, there is a teeny bit of suspicion about the OTRS submission. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommend for deletion. I cite Eviltrojan's account of her identity crisis and believe she is too unstable. We want the biography to be encyclopedic and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.151.5 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)  — 98.14.151.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: 98.14.151.5 has been vandalizing the article. The person requesting this deletion is probably the same person that has been vandalizing and removing sourced information from the article for quite some time now, and has been banned twice for it, and if she can't get it her way no-one can.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - OTRS ticket number is 2010102610006149 if anyone would like to get another OTRS member to take a look at it. I would personal take this one on good faith that it is the person in question. However, good faith only stretches so far and I haven't been involved in the history of this at all. So as I said, please feel free to have someone else take a look at it. Extra input is always welcome!
 * On a similar note, please make your votes based on whether or not you feel the article deserves deletion. If it doesn't (and someone found sources so yay!) then it won't be deleted and no amount of OTRS emails is going to change that (short of action by the office, and that would be out of my hands).
 * Thanks guys! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommend for deletion. The sources cited are not the basis for an accurate biography. It seems the author/editor of this page has tried to connect the dots of this woman's life by creating his own assumptions/interpretations of barely bare bones facts found on a couple of websites that would not be viable sources for any college paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voice4l (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — Voice4l (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think it is amazing that the editor who added the following unreferenced text to the article:
 * "She worked with an outreach for runaway circus clowns and wall street bankers for a large part of 2000."
 * has something to say about sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommend deletion. If hodges were notable, sources would be plentiful. a page could always be created later if sources found/ notability established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.151.5 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) — 98.14.151.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as the sourcing does not demonstrate that this meets the notability criteria; no userfy as this is a BLP, but of course Scjessey can have an offline copy in order to continue working on it to add sufficient sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have taken an offline copy of the article per John's suggestion; therefore, if the decision is to delete there is no need to wait for me to do so. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, marginal notability at best, subject requests deletion, let's not be evil. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The sourcing issues and lack of obvious notability would be sufficient; in addition, I see no reason not to comply with the OTRS request. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:04, 18 November 2010 (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.