Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Bennett (actress)


 * 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 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lorna Bennett (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

New article on an actress that doesn't improve on the one deleted after the previous discussion (Articles for deletion/Lorna Bennett (actor)). Similar but not identical to the deleted article so wasn't a G4, so I prodded it but the prod was removed, so bringing it here. It's a shame that we have to waste more time discussing this but... Michig (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Changing the name shouldn't change the result. The only source that might even remotely approach reliability is IMDB, and that was adequately discussed on the last AFD. Kansan (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: A career of barely-credited bit parts does not WP:ENTERTAINER or the GNG pass. Nor, as does the anon IP above, do I presume that someone can only seek to apply Wikipedia rules and guidelines through Some Hidden Agenda.  Some WP:AGF, please.   Ravenswing  16:59, 12
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is vastly different, what about all the new citations and references? How can someone be "barely credited" anyway? You're either credited or not, and from what I've read the vast majority of her roles have been lead, or guest anyway.  That just seems spiteful to write that. People don't appear to have looked at the new entry and just jumped to assumptions. From the article I read I can see Lorna Bennett is a busy actress, a playwright who has had professional productions of her work put on, has produced a film with some relatively big names involved AND has directed in the West End, how is none of this notable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.198.73 (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)  — 78.144.198.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Which ones are significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions? Any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I looked but couldn't find any. Edgepedia (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: The "vast majority of her roles have been lead?" Really?  "Female Teacher?" "Mother?" "Anne Campbell's PA?" "Girl In Car?"  She was a minor character in both her Doctors appearances, she was an uncredited extra in her Cry Wolf appearance, and everything else was an indie film. Indeed, the two SPAs pushing Ms. Bennett have put in a blizzard of references, but not a single one of them qualifies under WP:RS; without exception, the most they do is name the subject in a list.  Not a single one, as WP:RS requires, discusses the subject "in significant detail" (or, indeed, in any detail at all) and there's a dearth of "reliable, independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy."  A number of them are user-created.  The SPAs would be better off expending their considerable energy in reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:ENTERTAINER, with an eye towards telling us which criteria of the latter the subject meets and why.   Ravenswing  18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am saddened to read the above, it seems to me to be against the very tenets of WP. Lorna Bennett is an actress, all the information contained on her page is verifiable (try LAMDA graduates list, Spotlight, cast lists the shows mentioned on imdb or the BBC website), why then does it need deleting? WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia providing "as much information as possible". Or is this about notoriety? Is WP now the arbiter of notoriety? How "famous" does one need to be to be considered? It seems to be a very silly rule if one can prove ones veracity but needs a few reporters to pen a some articles before WP will consider you worthy. If it's true it should stay in, therefore her page should not be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.234.202 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)  — 78.149.234.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 78.149.234.202 in answer to your question an actor has an article on wikipedia if there are are significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and or significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I've looked through the references provided but couldn't find anything. Have I missed something? Are there any significant reviews of her work? Edgepedia (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia may not be the arbiter of notoriety, but it (as applied by a consensus of its editors) is the arbiter of its own policies and guidelines. Rather than promote your private opinion as to what Wikipedia ought to be, I strongly encourage you to review WP:PILLAR, WP:NOT, WP:GNG and WP:BIO so you can gain an understanding as to how we do things.  Good luck.   Ravenswing  13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for the links, after reading I must concede there are grounds for discussing the article, but as the rules themselves as stated are "not hard and fast" I hope it will be given a reprieve, as the grounds for deletion are down to the interpretation of "notable". All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whilhelm III (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)  — Whilhelm III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Notability not established according to WP:ENT. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fails WP:GNG. While several references have been offered, they are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject. They are primarily publicity points for the projects in which she has been involved. Notability not established at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hmm...four editors in favour of deletion, one SPA/sock wanting it to stay - do we really need to continue discussing this?--Michig (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete Make that five. Fails WP:GNG Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The blizzard of references only establish that she is a working actress. The distinct lack of significant coverage indicates she does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 21 October 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.