Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Larsson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandra Larsson[edit]
- Sandra Larsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NACTOR, which calls for multiple notable performances. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - One of the main roles in a big swedish film. shes an actress. the article doesnt claim anything else.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The article doesn't claim anything else. The request delete is not based on the article being inaccurate, it's based on her not being sufficiently notable. Please review the notability guidelines for actors at WP:NACTOR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - all the actors in this film has recieved alot of attention for the film as it was highly appreciated as film-work. I stay by my keep for good reasons. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So she's receiving the attention that all the actors in the film received. The film getting a lot of attention is good reason for covering the film, but being part of that group does not make her contributions "unique" or "innovative", and that her coverage is all for the one film leads this to being WP:BLP1E. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Her role has been described in multiple sources as being a notable one. She isn't some non notable extra.Also, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources, and she has been.JusticeSonic (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So she's receiving the attention that all the actors in the film received. The film getting a lot of attention is good reason for covering the film, but being part of that group does not make her contributions "unique" or "innovative", and that her coverage is all for the one film leads this to being WP:BLP1E. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - all the actors in this film has recieved alot of attention for the film as it was highly appreciated as film-work. I stay by my keep for good reasons. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The article doesn't claim anything else. The request delete is not based on the article being inaccurate, it's based on her not being sufficiently notable. Please review the notability guidelines for actors at WP:NACTOR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I de-PRODed the article since the PROD reason was no longer valid. On the one hand it's clear that she has just done one "real" movie role, on the other hand, all Swedish "old media" references to this production I found specifically mention her (usually with a photo), although there are several well-established actors in it. This is not too common for those sources, in my experience. So she doesn't yet fulfil bullet point 1, but there is perhaps a bit of "add-on" from bullet point 3 and perhaps 2. In the end, it seems like a borderline case to me. Tomas e (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason shown for re-listing the AFD debate is pretty weak. How could the consensus be any clearer? There has only been one person arguing in favour of deletion, and that's the nominator.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The relisting is the result of an administrator finding that a non-administrator had had insufficient cause to stop the discussion. "Consensus" is not a matter of a narrow majority, and in this case there were only two people holding for Keep, one of whom being the WP:SPA who created the article under discussion, and some of the defenses of the article were problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason shown for re-listing the AFD debate is pretty weak. How could the consensus be any clearer? There has only been one person arguing in favour of deletion, and that's the nominator.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stands by my Keep. She has had a role in a major swedish film. shes an actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 25 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.