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.
Delete - I didn't see any other sources on Yahoo and Google that could help a biography aside from IMDb.Keep - Since sources have been found and the article has been written appropriately to Wikipedian guidelines, I suppose the article can stay.
SwisterTwistertalk 19:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep and improve. I have seen less notable actresses BLP's surviving. --
BweeB (
talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:ANYBIO[1] and
WP:ENT[2]. While the article itself needs work for style and tone, the actress and her work and awards are verifiable and do seem to get coverage in sources
[3][4] which would allow article improvements. I think this will be my improvement focus for tomorrow. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Those sources seem to be passing mentions (ie cast lists and the like). Is there anything that would support our requirement for meeting every clause of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per
WP:BIO?
EyeSerenetalk 11:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
And as this article is a
work in progress, a presumption that those many "seeming" mentions will lead to something more substantial is reasonable. I do not read
Israeli, but I will see what I can find, as notable in
Israel is just fine for en.Wikipedia, and our requirement per
WP:ENT means
verificability of the many notable productions and a presumption of coverage, even if not immediately found or in English. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The paragraphs in the Playbill article covering the
Anthony Neilson stageplay Stitching (in which she had a starring role) contain something more than a mere mention,
[6] and offer decent information suitable for mandated
verification. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The article about her in Los Angeles Times,[7] covering her background and her role in Monogamy, is also one that represents significant and in-depth coverage. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Though brief, the article about her in Israel21c also addresses her directly and in detail.
[8]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I would ask that editors and the nominator consider how the article and sourcing looked when first nominated
[13] and compare that earlier version to the improved version after I have addressed concerns.
[14] I was able to find and the requested significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so as to
confirm meeting
WP:GNG,
WP:ENT and
WP:CREATIVE. I believe my original reasons for !voting "keep" have been born out through only a little effort. Thanks. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep MichaelQSchmidt has proven its notable without any reasonable doubt. Not sure if the nominator can withdrawn this sicne one other person did say Delete.
DreamFocus 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominators can change their minds and withdraw anytime. A sole delete will simply hold off a "speedy" snow keep close. That sole delete !vote
has been notified of the article improvemnents, but appears to have not made any edits since before the notice was placed.
[15]] Our choices are either to be patient or to
not. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)reply
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.