Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Harrison (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Consensus is clear on the notability of the subject does not meet the standard. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Harrison[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was kept at AfD in April due to two weak keeps for NACTOR.

My concern is that if this person has truly played a significant part in a number of dramas, she'd fly past GNG by now.

I've looked hard for coverage of her in news and books and just can't see in-depth coverage of her beyond CVs and IMDB-blogs.

There are lots of mentions in cast lists, but that doesn't satisfy notability. This would do the trick except we need at least 2 examples and this is from the Daily Mirror, a tabloid newspaper, not from a reliable source.

I'd be happy for someone to post a few good sources and we can speedy close this as a keep. But without them, it looks like delete, currently. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB, procedural note, the previous closing admin Jo-Jo Eumerus, was happy for discussion to be re-opened. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant enough career with big enough roles to merit inclusion, and not difficult to verify these. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the easy verification and I'll get this closed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cluadia Harrison at British Film Institute, leading cast member of Murphy's Law, PopMatters review of major BBC series Murphy's Law which states "its greatest strength lies in its casting of James Nesbitt and Claudia Harrison.", sources confirming major role in Attachments: [1], [2] [3]. --Michig (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still see no in-depth coverage of her beyond a passing mention in a review and cast lists. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hope for additional input in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP having no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP and from doing a fairly extensive search any coverage is of minor/passing mentions in tabloid/magazines per routine coverage of the shows she has been in, rather than her herself. Notability is not inheri yadda yadda. Its likely there are other better historical print sources out there, but unless someone finds them its a delete from me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP where the only sourcing that exists is either unreliable or doesn't meet our inclusion standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of high quality sources per WP:BLP and a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. As an aside, I am bemused that this article has been around for eleven years with only an IMDb link supporting it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be disturbed by this condition. Wikipedia came to close to being a mirror of IMDb at one point. We have not really liberated ourselves yet from the unwise, free for all creation system that existed from 2005-2010. We also have too many hard core inclusionists who use the past poor inclusion guidelines to beat with a curmugeon anyone who tries to change the unwise status quo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate list, so we need show of notability, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with improvement but does appear to have had a significant screen career. Do I detect US-centrism against a British actor? PatGallacher (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (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.