Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Lakis


 * 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. -Scottywong | gossip _ 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Lakis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I stumbled across this tonight and saw that it had an immediate problem with sourcing, also having some overly promotional content as well. I cleaned out the unusable sources and the overly promotional content, but upon searching for sources I was unable to find any that actually covered her as an actress. There are some trivial sources, but nothing really in-depth. I'm also listing the article for Ewan Bourne, also by the same editor. This one does have sources, but the coverage is so minimal that I don't see how it gives notability to the director. His sources are as follows:
 * An article by a local paper about a film he's working on that seems to be more taken from a press release than to be an actual article.
 * This is by the same paper and suffers most of the same issues, mostly listing people in a "taken directly from a press release" fashion.
 * This is more of an article, but it is more about a tax incentive that Bourne praises than about him.

I just don't see where any of these sources show notability for Bourne and there's a lack of reliable in-depth sourcing for Lakis. I'd speedy both, but I want to bring it to AfD since the editor is new and hopefully if there's any sources out there that were missed, that they could be found. As far as the movie goes, I'm nominating it because it is related to Bourne and has a similar problem with sources. There is one review, but the other two links go to pages for sites that are reliable but are predominantly just re-stating a press release for the film. Since the film was released last year and received little coverage, it's unlikely that it will get anymore in the near enough future to warrant sitting on it for a while.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:



Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep


 * Lauren Lakis
 * Ewan Bourne


 * There are many articles on both of these people to show that both articles in topic are and have been strong members in the film industry.
 * The articles in question on Lauren Lakis are strong enough fact about her work as an actress.


 * The page on Ewan Bourne originally contained many detailed articles about his carrer as a producer. As you stated above about his directing, he directed one horror motion picture that was gaining praise and then was dropped by the studio when it had budget issues. He has been known as a strong producer in the horror genre of filmmaking as stated with his close relation and ties running in the cult horror group of classic filmmakers.


 * Deleting the page for Zombie Apocalypse: Redemption shows this the editor has a personal issue with the creator. This article was created a long time ago and was fine to stay on this site until now, only because of this editors personal issue. Next I'm guessing Tokyogirl79 will request a deletion for the the page of Lovely Molly. LFPRESS (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)


 * No, no I don't have an agenda. Also, if you didn't notice, I was one of the main contributors to the page for Lovely Molly, sourcing it to where it would be safe from deletion. As far as notability goes, prove it with reliable sources that actually go into depth about Lakis, Bourne, or the film. I did a search and I couldn't find anything to show that any of them pass WP:GNG at all, let alone the more specific ones for WP:CREATIVE, WP:NFILM, or WP:NACTOR. None of them have sources that show that they pass these guidelines or the ones for notability in general. Also, notability is not inherited by anyone having any sort of association with a notable persona. If I can use an example, Woody Allen's wife is not considered notable enough for an article, despite being married to him, and he's considered to be one of the most known filmmakers in general out there and highly notable. I neither delete articles due to a personal bias or involvement with the actors/directors/films/etc, nor have I ever created an article about someone on behalf of that person. I'm pretty much neutral when it comes to articles and I have to admit that I resent the implication that I'm doing this out of a personal bias.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, just because an article has existed without being nominated for deletion to this point does not mean that it passed notability guidelines at any point in time. It just means that until I came upon it, nobody else took the time to nominate it for deletion. We don't keep articles because they've been around for long periods of time, we keep them because they pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since you've already brought up the subject of a bias or conflict of interest, I must also ask if you are involved with the subjects of this AfD in any way, shape or form. If you are, then you might want to read through WP:COI. Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean that you can't edit, just that you should be honest about your connection to the topics at hand and proceed with caution since it's easy to see notability where there isn't any or to take deletions personally.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - un-sourced (or not well sourced) articles which do not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR (specifically). Zombie Apocalypse: Redemption might meet the criteria if there were more reviews / "significant coverage" but I couldn't find any. They also seem to have been written by the "press" officer for one of the associated production companies/agencies. Never a good idea. Please see WP:COI. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I searched around everywhere, and wasn't able to find anything that would rise to significant coverage in reliable sources under WP:GNG. I found one interview in a local paper, but it appeared to be more of a promotional thing (her website was listed at the end) than an objective report on her. Given that the creator is a new user, we might consider userfy for possible future use if significant coverage does arise; the actress is quite young and it's possible that she may get some bigger roles and more coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with anyone userfying the content from these pages, if they'd be interested in that. I would, of course, recommend that if anyone involved with the production company takes in the content, that they go through WikiProject Film or a similar WikiProject before re-adding to the mainspace in order to ensure neutrality.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2012 (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.