Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loryn Locklin (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loryn Locklin[edit]

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; a stub article on a minor actress which has been tagged "Notability" since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her major film roles may have been some time ago, but are still sufficient for inclusion and are easily verified (try Google Books). --Michig (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not disputing that he had a major role in a movie. But the sources I see do not amount to "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers for generally accepted notability criteria. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines state: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable (...). Additional guidelines (i.e. Entertainer): People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

Note that the guideline discuss presumed notability that needs to be demonstrated though significant coverage. This coverage appears to be missing in this case; that's why I nominated this article for AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is likely to exist from the 1980s and 1990s and is likely to only exist offline. --Michig (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has not manifested itself in the eight intervening years since the article has been tagged "Notability", so it's unlikely that it would. The current sources are not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage generally does not simply "manifest itself", it requires editors to search for it, in this case in print sources from the 1980s and 1990s. --Michig (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR criteria one ( only one criteria is needed) rs confirm the film roles, offline sources would be helpful as so much webcontent has been deleted (ie a lot of pages from NY Times) or are behind paywalls.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationale of Atlantic306 that she has starring roles in multiple, notable films and meets the notability guideline for Actors via criteria 1. Easily confirmed. BoyRD (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (by nom) to Fortress (1992 film). All coverage I see on Locklin is related to this movie.

Books, such as Sci-Fi Movie guide.
Newspapers
Movie reviews.

This appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NACTOR with multiple named roles. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NACTOR requirements, which is easily verifiable: it's not just Fortress, it's also Taking Care of Business (see Arxiloxos 's sources in previous AfD), and others (eg. [1], [2], [3]). The proper place for disputing the NACTOR guideline or other SNGs is not here but the relevant guidelines' talk pages (others tried to remove the NACTOR criteria and failed, and I currently don't see any chances to have such notability criteria removed). Cavarrone 17:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, though much from AGF on print sources. Yet another example of pre-Google notability and recentism. Montanabw^(talk) 16:04, 19 August 2016 (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.