Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Piper

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Piper[edit]

[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)

I was not able to find sufficient in-depth coverage to indicate that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. The sources in the article are social media, user-generated, or, in the case of the Chronicle article, do not mention her. There is virtually no coverage of her as an artist, not even trivial mentions, so that can be safely discarded as a potential source of notability. Her acting career was short-lived, and also did not produce much media interest. The best I could find were these two newspaper clips: [1] and [2], both from early 1990. The first isn't bad - a little "star spotlight" feature in a Texas paper, but the second link is just a short human-interest fluff piece about her emceeing a local student function. There was nothing after that. I don't think it's sufficient coverage to keep a BLP about someone whose public career is largely over and who is unlikely to generate new coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not even remotely close to rising to the level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2022 (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.