Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa McGrillis

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. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McGrillis[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Every one of the references is a link to a web page which falls into one or more of the following categories: (1) a page not mentioning Lisa McGrillis at all; (2) a page which is not an independent source (e.g. an advertisement for a play she has been in, or other pages on web sites of theatres where she has performed); (3) a review of a play in which she performed, which merely includes a two sentence mention of her; (4) IMDb, which (a) is not a reliable source, as anyone can contribute, (b) is no evidence of notability, as virtually anyone who has ever worked on a film in almost any capacity is likely to have an entry, and (c) cannot be considered an independent source, as very often people submit pages about themselves.

Note: A deletion proposal notice was removed without any explanation by the author of the article, whose user name is Lisamcgrillis. The same editor has removed maintenance tags, including an "autobiography" tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. All the references do is prove that McGrillis exists. Not that she is notable. Dismas|^(talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the author removed the templates she did asked for help today, I do think she is of low importance but she is notable. since I placed most of the maintenance tags I do think that this article should be greatly improved to sustain it. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't like to say "keep" or "delete" but does the article really need such a stack of warning tags? They take up more space than the actual text. What are the warning tags for? If they're to guide an inexperienced writer, I think such a large number is well into deterrent territory. If they're to warn readers, I think readers would get the message after the first couple of badges-of-shame. And they're not much use in attracting other editors who fix specific problems, considering the article has already been seen by folk and there's a 7-day deadline hanging over it. Just pick the important tags and remove the rest... bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Appears to be pure WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Per as I said before. I don´t think it´s meant as WP:ADVERT because the author asked for help many time´s but no one helps her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redalert2fan (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google news turns up 39 hits, including Lisa McGrillis, an actress best known for her role as the life model in The Pitmen Painters which went from Newcastle, to London and then to Broadway, Lisa McGrillis as a life-drawing model in the show's most sitcomish scene, but the shapely curves of actress Lisa McGrillis and so on. Entirely plausible that someone might look for more information about her on wikipedia. But article does need clean up. SalHamton (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. she is a star http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yq21l/profiles/vicki-pearson
- Comment That is not independent like a source should be. The BBC makes their money with actors, so of course they're going to have biographies of the characters that they play. And it's not about McGrillis herself. It's about her character. Those are two distinct things. Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some sources, but they don't amount to significant coverage under WP:GNG. Let's take a look. The NYT article cited above contains exactly half a sentence about McGrillis: "The ensemble is rounded out by Lisa McGrillis as a life-drawing model in the show’s most sitcomish scene". This article about her brother also contains just one subclause in which she is mentioned in passing: "His introduction to the theatre came via his younger sister, Lisa McGrillis, an actress best known for her role as the life model in The Pitmen Painters which went from Newcastle, to London and then to Broadway." This article contains a brief section about Gordon Brown's attendance at a play where he incidentally gawks at McGrillis; it's whimsical in tone and does not constitute much more than a passing mention. If Brown weren't there, this undoubtedly wouldn't have been written. This BBC page is about a character she plays, not the actress. These are the references that have been cited so far. I did a Google search and could only find trivial mentions in mostly unreliable sources. A glance at the Google News results shows some incidental coverage of characters she plays or has played, but nothing that could be construed as significant coverage of the actress herself. Fails the WP:GNG significant coverage criterion. --Batard0 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (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.