Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Lindsey Donzis

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 . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lindsey Donzis

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG. Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip. There just isn't enough here to sustain the existence of a WP:BLP on the site. PROD removed without action to address the issues. Ashik Rahik (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ashik Rahik (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) t[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit-parts or one-offs, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floundering between weak keep and weak delete: I was the one who removed the PROD on the article because I feel WP:NACTOR wasn't being considered by the nominator. Donzis has main cast roles in three different TV/streaming series (Punky Brewster (2021), No Good Nick, and Liv and Maddie: Cali Style (fourth season of that series)). The problem I'm having is interpreting the spirit of NACTOR #1 because I've been under the impression that main cast = significant role, which I'm now having doubts about that being true. If I understand the notability test correctly, either the more general test, aka WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, must be met ... or the more specific test, NACTOR for this subject, must be met. Both can be met, and still not guarantee the inclusion of the subject in article mainspace. Because of the NACTOR issue, I felt that PROD wasn't the right move, and that more feedback is needed from other editors. Having said that, I do agree with the nominator about the state of the sources in the article, with none demonstrating notability, and even with NACTOR (which should also be backed by independent, third-party sources, not just the fact that the series she's appeared in list her prominently in the credits), it might be best to delete. I just am on the fence right now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good sourcing within the article. Asa Kabir (talk)
I'm at delete based on article's current sourcing... The only "in depth"-type coverage of the subject at the article is Tiger Beat(! Tiger Beat! the teen gossip mag!!), so that's just incredibly weak. Other sources at the article would only be "passing mentions" of the subject, not in-depth coverage. IOW, the subject, while possibly passing WP:NACTOR in a "technical" sense, does not appear to pass the far more important WP:BASIC criteria... Now, if subject doesn't retire now that she is no longer a "child actress", that may change in the future. But, right now, the subject does not appear to pass WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 28 April 2023 (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.