Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Moritz


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Louisa Moritz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has zero citations, was originally filled with fluff and trivia, and really has no important information in it, other than a long but unimportant list of alleged "extra" work, where most of the roles are not leads, but instead trivial. It is safe to say that one or two of the filmography seems somewhat notable, but nevertheless can be added to the movie or film, since this individual is not noteworthy enough to have her own Wikipedia page. Bambolinaz (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) — Bambolinaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  03:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  03:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment; the nominator removed the entire filmography from the article before nomination. I know IMDb ain't the best source, but you can't delete an entire filmography and then say she hasn't acted in anything y'know? This actress is all over the news at the moment, I'm gonna hold off making my !vote until I've had chance to figure out what's going on here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment; I'm not saying she hasn't acted in anything, just saying not one of the parts were lead roles, all of them seemed to be undocumented and nonmemorable parts as "extras" and her being in the news briefly recently is only because of hearsay regarding an actual celebrity, not because of her own merit or talents. Bambolinaz (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment; Also, in my opinion, a brief snippet in the news regarding your personal life, whether true or not, is not enough to keep an entire Wikipedia page up about someone. Bambolinaz (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, speedy close. Bad faith nomination by an apparent sock. The nominator's statements are mostly false, the credits are easily verified, the subject meets NACTOR, and the fact that a performer whose active career sputtered out in the mid-1980's doesn't have a dominant contemporary internet presence has little bearing on notability. Just a crude attempt to degrade a person in today's headlines and tomorrow's "Whatever happened to . . . " The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment; I just looked up what a "sock" is according to wikipeople and just because I know how to read and follow directions to propose a deletion does not make me an expert administrator who decided to edit as a "sock." Personal attacks are not necessary or proper, especially when Wikipedia is a venue that encourages everyone to edit. I only heard of this person recently but have no personal connection or opinion of the gossip. I am merely stating my opinion, as my right, to express that I believe she is not notable enough for a complete Wikipedia page, and tabloids now do not justify or substantiate her continued inclusion. Bambolinaz (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of parts on television and in the movies in the late 70s/early 80s.  No, she wasn't generally the star of these productions, but it's not at all difficult to confirm her presence in dozens of roles.  I think the volume of her work allows her to pass WP: NACTOR easily. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I remember her, she seems to have a notable history as a minor celebrity. I don't know, or see reasons her page can't be kept and developed... I defer to the earlier notations that she meets the NACTOR spec. I find it illogical for a new editor to begin their activities with proposals for deletions, which I think is something that might be better handled by more experienced editors who know the criteria better from longer familiarity with editing wikis/pages, and who might be more objective for that reason. Joining as a new editor to propose a deletion seems suspect, and ill-advised to allow... Wikipedia might benefit by a rule-making limiting new editors to actual contributions and not senior editing/deletions... just my opinion. Bambolinaz last Comment 5:39, 23 November 2014 does not contribute further to the topic of this page, but is simply a response to a personal perception of insult, with minor rehash of previous comments. (No offense intended) 72.42.166.93 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:NACTOR, and that suffices. -- The Anome (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:NACTOR and (now anyway) WP:GNG (in light of the Bill Cosby scandal). Something about @Bambolinaz's nomination of this article and continuous comments to dispute and self-defend seem odd. This editor is a one-note editor who has only edited the Moritz page.  Quis separabit?  22:10, 26 November 2014 (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.