Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Crawford


 * 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   Closing as speedy keep and WP:SNOW (by nominator). LibStar (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Louise Crawford

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. hardly any coverage for her "best known" role. or her current TV role. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) t
 * Keep Notable actress with notable roles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable actress with notable roles. And to expand (lest I be told that an essay invalidates my comment), among her many notable projects I note that she is a significant character in 8 episodes of Neighbours and in 27 episodes of City Homicide which allow her to meet WP:ENT's requirement that she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Guideline encourages that her article will improve the project by being allowed to remain and further grow over the due course of time.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Since when is being in 27 episodes of an award-nominated national television show non-notable? Article makes a notability claim, so ask for sources, don't delete.  - BalthCat (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject certainly seems notable to me. --Roisterer (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects LibStar, your twice using an essay to claim another's opinion as invalid does not take into consideration that the editors may very well have read the article or looked at sources or considered other comments here before offering their own succint answers. While you might wish more from them, their opinions, specially in context to other editor's comments, are valid even without expansion. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if the editor has actually read the sources and article they should say that in an AfD, this is a simple courtesy and helps the closing admin as well. simply saying it's notable provides zero evidence is hardly helpful. they've considered other aguments I've seen often the same editor habitually write "it's notable" on numerous AfDs...you have to wonder if they're actually even reading the AfD or article. one editor who seemed not to like my nomination of various unrelated articles simply popped up at each one and said "it's notable". LibStar (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that editor will in the future provide a bit more of an explanation. Please know that I can understand your comment, specially considering the number of times I have myself seen a succinct "non-notable" as entirety of a comment at AFDs by editors other than yourself. I believe what we both would like are better explanations so that points might be further discussed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * totally agreed. I don't want AfDs to be WP:JUSTAVOTE. simply saying "it's (non)notable" is totally insufficient. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LibStar, the substance of several of your recent AfD nomination statements appears to be "does not meet WP:BIO" (with no explanation for how you reached that conclusion, apart from a link to a search which you have restricted to Google News archives), and yet you seem to be chastising others for stating that the subject is notable and using Google links to demonstrate. I agree with you that just saying "it is notable" is a pretty weak argument and should be discouraged, but perhaps it would help your argument if you demonstrated more clearly how the subjects do not meet the criteria for inclusion or notability. --Canley (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a nominator in some cases, if you don't like my nomination feel free to provide arguments against. Google news is good way of finding media articles on sources. I generally do not use google, as mirror sites and passing mentions come up a lot. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with those above. Her roles do clearly prove she is notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:ENT with "significant roles in multiple ... television shows". Recurring cast member of City Homicide, Home and Away and Neighbours, main cast member of Breakers – the book Super Aussie Soaps by Andrew Mercado interviews her about a controversial lesbian storyline on the show which was mentioned in the Australian parliament – and star of Channel V cross-platform drama Forget The Rules. --Canley (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (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.