Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Lark


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Shannon Lark

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject appears almost totally unnotable; most of her appearances are in shorts which do not themselves have articles of their own. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "appears almost totally unnotable" is a statement at odds with research in reliable sources, as she does indeed have extensive genre coverage. And a film not having articles means either A. no one has written the article yet, or B. someone did and the film proved non-notable. So while it would seem that Ms. Lark would be hard pressed to meet WP:ENT, the article is not asserting that such is her claim to notablity.  The assertions for (genre) notability is for her being a spokesmodel and scream queen... and THAT assertion seems to be easily verifiable... and she does have coverage in multiple sources for the last eleven years.  Strange assertion, sure... as it does not rank up there with the "glory" of being an Oscar or Nobel prize winner... but as an assertion it meets the GNG and passes WP:BIO. Even a minor notability, and even in a genre field, can meet guideline, and be notability none-the-less.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really don't think spooksmodel for a horror magazine is up to WP:BIO's notability standards, and a scream queen is by definition an actress. So if she doesn't meet WP:ENT--and I don't believe that she does--then she doesn't belong. If it's kept, it should also be stubbified. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:BIO nor the general notability guide say that being a spokesmodel or scream queen are automatic grounds for a declaration on non-notability. What they both DO instruct is that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are ground for inclusion.  And Fangoria is considered a quite important publication to its genre.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep She appears to qualify in WP:ENT under having a significant cult following in her genre. She appears to be a selected person for various 'women in horror' documentaries, interviews, character inspiration, etc.  She had a significant role in one movie and that movie barely qualifies as notable (and doesn't have an article, though I believe it could). There are possibly more movies upcoming... But really it's her apparent cult following as evinced in several of the references that makes me lean toward keep. Felisse (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails the requirements of WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. The entry is clearly self-promotional, violating WP:AUTO, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI, and is the work of at least three previously identified WP:SPA accounts.  One of the accounts was blocked twice for its self-promotional edits to the entry . Qworty (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which sounds more like a decent reason to fix issues, rather than toss an improvable article. If ANY editor causes problems with articles, we address the editor (as you have noted was done) not delete an article to prevent improper attention. If that were the solution, Wikipedia would be considerably smaller.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep coverage in WP:RS meets WP:GNG. COI editing is not, by itself, grounds for the deletion of notable material, nor is purported failure to satisfy the requirements of a specific notability guideline, when the standards of the general notability guideline are met. Chester Markel (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She got a few relatively minor mentions in reliable sources; I don't see how this rises to notability standards. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage in independent reliable sources does not appear to be substantial. -- Pink Bull  15:41, 25 May 2011 (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.