388:
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.
355:; 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
278:
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?
277:
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
387:
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?
486:
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.
574:. 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
453:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
Knowledge (XXG) ought to be, I strongly encourage you to review
578:. 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.
155:
251:
190:). 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...
632:- 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 Knowledge (XXG). --
187:
149:
110:
351:
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
208:. 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.
231:
or the GNG pass. Nor, as does the anon IP above, do I presume that someone can only seek to apply
Knowledge (XXG) rules and guidelines through Some Hidden Agenda. Some
343:
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
115:
83:
78:
87:
70:
436:. I've looked through the references provided but couldn't find anything. Have I missed something? Are there any significant reviews of her work?
620:
409:
395:
170:
299:
285:
137:
526:
417:
307:
522:
503:
17:
616:
595:. Hmm...four editors in favour of deletion, one SPA/sock wanting it to stay - do we really need to continue discussing this?--
131:
127:
656:
641:
624:
604:
587:
559:
507:
478:
445:
403:
375:
335:
293:
266:
217:
199:
52:
36:
177:
74:
655:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
426:
413:
399:
364:
316:
228:
303:
289:
66:
58:
518:
499:
491:
391:
281:
143:
514:
495:
427:
significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
317:
significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
583:
441:
331:
163:
540:
455:
186:
New article on an actress that doesn't improve on the one deleted after the previous discussion (
424:
78.149.234.202 in answer to your question an actor has an article on wikipedia if there are are
262:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
600:
213:
195:
613:
575:
571:
467:
463:
459:
432:
322:
232:
471:
368:
236:
49:
367:, with an eye towards telling us which criteria of the latter the subject meets and why.
356:
352:
637:
579:
555:
437:
327:
360:
258:
104:
596:
209:
191:
543:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
633:
550:
433:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
323:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
470:
so you can gain an understanding as to how we do things. Good luck.
649:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
188:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lorna
Bennett (actor)
252:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
100:
96:
92:
548:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
162:
176:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
659:). No further edits should be made to this page.
347:appearances, she was an uncredited extra in her
227:A career of barely-credited bit parts does not
8:
570:. Notability not established according to
246:
250:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
326:? I looked but couldn't find any.
24:
1:
642:20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
625:15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
617:Catfish Jim and the soapdish
605:12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
588:12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
560:12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
508:19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
479:13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
446:06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
404:18:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
376:18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
336:17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
294:11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
267:18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
218:17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
200:17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
53:18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
676:
652:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
67:Lorna Bennett (actress)
59:Lorna Bennett (actress)
612:Make that five. Fails
527:few or no other edits
418:few or no other edits
308:few or no other edits
529:outside this topic.
420:outside this topic.
310:outside this topic.
44:The result was
562:
530:
511:
494:comment added by
421:
394:comment added by
311:
284:comment added by
269:
255:
667:
654:
547:
545:
512:
510:
488:
475:
407:
406:
372:
297:
296:
256:
240:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
675:
674:
670:
669:
668:
666:
665:
664:
663:
657:deletion review
650:
538:
489:
473:
389:
370:
363:and especially
314:Which ones are
279:
238:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
673:
671:
662:
661:
645:
644:
627:
607:
590:
564:
563:
546:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
481:
448:
410:78.149.234.202
396:78.149.234.202
381:
380:
379:
378:
365:WP:ENTERTAINER
338:
271:
270:
244:
229:WP:ENTERTAINER
221:
220:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
672:
660:
658:
653:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
626:
622:
618:
615:
611:
608:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
544:
542:
537:
536:
528:
524:
520:
516:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
485:
482:
480:
477:
476:
469:
465:
461:
457:
452:
449:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
429:
428:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
405:
401:
397:
393:
386:
383:
382:
377:
374:
373:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
319:
318:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
300:78.144.198.73
295:
291:
287:
286:78.144.198.73
283:
276:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:Speedy delete
204:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
651:
648:
629:
609:
592:
567:
549:
539:
515:Whilhelm III
496:Whilhelm III
483:
472:
450:
431:
425:
384:
369:
348:
344:
340:
321:
315:
274:
247:
237:
224:
205:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
610:SNOW Delete
525:) has made
490:—Preceding
474:Ravenswing
416:) has made
390:—Preceding
371:Ravenswing
306:) has made
280:—Preceding
239:Ravenswing
150:free images
235:, please.
50:Courcelles
580:Cindamuse
456:WP:PILLAR
438:Edgepedia
341:Response:
328:Edgepedia
259:• Gene93k
243:16:59, 12
541:Relisted
523:contribs
504:contribs
492:unsigned
484:Comment:
451:Comment:
430:and or
392:unsigned
349:Cry Wolf
282:unsigned
111:View log
593:Comment
345:Doctors
225:Delete:
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
630:Delete
614:WP:GNG
597:Michig
576:WP:GNG
572:WP:ENT
568:Delete
468:WP:BIO
464:WP:GNG
460:WP:NOT
320:? Any
233:WP:AGF
210:Kansan
192:Michig
128:Google
88:delete
46:delete
385:Keep:
357:WP:RS
353:WP:RS
275:Keep:
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
638:talk
634:Whpq
621:talk
601:talk
584:talk
556:talk
551:Cirt
519:talk
500:talk
466:and
442:talk
414:talk
400:talk
361:WP:V
332:talk
304:talk
290:talk
263:talk
248:Note
214:talk
196:talk
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
257:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
640:)
623:)
603:)
586:)
558:)
521:•
513:—
506:)
502:•
462:,
458:,
444:)
408:—
402:)
359:,
334:)
298:—
292:)
265:)
254:.
216:)
198:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
636:(
619:(
599:(
582:(
554:(
517:(
498:(
440:(
412:(
398:(
330:(
302:(
288:(
261:(
212:(
194:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.