Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Harling (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 keep. Gentle note: It's important to not allow deletion arguments wade down to accusations. If an editor feel someone is a sock, take that to SPI. The Afd is not the place to discuss; and it would be mostly considered a personal attack if anyone continue this line. Having said that, I would recommend discussions on the talk page of the article and at RSN to confirm significance and reliability of sources. Follow WP:DR if need be. No prejudice against an early renomination if the said discussions result in any reliable sources being downgraded. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Harling[edit]

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

Article has recently been cleaned of unreliable references and citations. It appears upon reviewing the content that this actress has had a number of fairly minor non-notable roles with some minimal press coverage. I do not believe this passes the notability threshold. Shritwod (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is disputed that the references and citations were unreliable. See discussion below. Jack1956 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a member of the RSC and has had a long acting career for someone so young. Notability clearly established. Jack1956 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you think so, please add more sources.

Delete: Articles that include her because she plays a role in a film or play that is reviewed or previewed does not equal "significant" coverage of herself as a notable person. A quick search didn't find any articles that dedicate significant coverage to herself as a person. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was updated as noted below with lots more refs. They don't indicate notability in my opinion so I'm not changing my vote. Szzuk (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I am adding what I hope are acceptable references to show her notability. In addition to her acting credits she is also the Founder of two award-winning acting companies. Jack1956 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being involved in two non-notable companies does not infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And her acting credits...? Jack1956 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Some minor parts so far. Don't get me wrong, those are the sorts of parts that a lot of notable actors have taken in their careers. But it doesn't seem to add up to much at the moment. Shritwod (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strikes me as fully justified for inclusion. Tim riley talk 19:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was previously proposed for deletion and kept. Since then, the actress has played additional major roles. Harling has appeared in both Britain and the US, with the Royal Shakespeare company and other notable companies, and at the Royal Opera House, as well as on TV. She has also done significant producing work. Her acting career has already spanned more than two decades. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any significant coverage of herself though? Do you have sources that show significant discussion of her as a person/actor? We're not IMDB, we don't need to keep an article on an actor just because they have done acting gigs. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ssilvers: sufficient evidence is already present to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've twice tried to remove a number of inappropriate and/or non-reliable sources from this (I was brought to it by an unreliable source it was using). The first time they were stuck back by Jack1956, the second time my edits were reverted by Ssilvers with the summary "Please do not remove refs until the deletion discussion is concluded". Ermm, why not, Ssilvers? Why exactly are you permitted to edit the references while I am not? The deletion discussion notice says "Feel free to improve the article". Unless there is some policy-based reason why I should not do so, I intend to remove those poor sources for the third time so that those interested in this discussion can see more clearly what has been said about this person in independent reliable sources, and so form an opinion on whether or not she is notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the point is we think they are independent reliable sources and you don't, so by removing them you are not improving the article in our opinion. Jack1956 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The website of a theatre producing organization is a perfectly good source to verify the fact of who the founder of that organization is. The source should not be used to make an "exceptional claim", like "this is the best theatre producing organization in the UK". See WP:SELFPUB. Removing sources during a deletion discussion is exactly the opposite of what you say: it is hiding the sources so that participants in the discussion cannot review and discuss them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I doubt if arbitrary deletion of citations is good practice, particularly when several editors think them appropriate. Unethical would be too strong a word, perhaps, but not quite the thing. Tim riley talk 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am surprised to see an experienced editor defending what appears to be stuffing the article with citations from non-notable sources in order to fluff it up. In my opinion Ssilvers is merely following established guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that my old friend and Wikicolleague Ssilvers is, as Shritwood explicitly concedes, "following established guidelines". Shouldn't we all? If you disapprove of a cited source, good practice is to discuss it on the article talk page rather than arbitrarily and repeatedly delete it. Tim riley talk 19:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability clearly established - especially with the recent additions. Dreamspy (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - curious that you haven't made an edit for seven years and then pop up for this debate, especially to support the thinnest of sources being added. Shritwod (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Classic stuff: lose the argument and switch to ad hominem (or ad feminam) slurs. Tim riley talk 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I thought these debates were supposed to be concerned with the issues rather than attacking editors who don't agree with you. Jack1956 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ad hominem attack to point out what looks like sock puppetry. Shritwod (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sock puppet? This is starting to get ridiculous. Jack1956 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is a serious accusation. I really think, Shritwod, that you need to apologize to Dreamspy and whoever else you are accusing of sockpuppetry. Do you have some conflict of interest here that is motivating your behavior in resurrecting this AfD and then attacking the Wikipedians who are participating in the discussion? Shame on you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that there's a user with such erratic editing behaviour who turned up to vote on the AfD after a break of several years. When I've seen that before it is usually a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I apologise if this is not the case. However, I still stand by my assertion that the citations here are very thin indeed and am frankly surprised that experienced editors seem to think otherwise Shritwod (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with notable theatre roles for RSC, Royal Opera House and others as confirmed in reviews by reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2018 (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.