Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell (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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Popplewell[edit]

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

The Stub has been hanging around for two years and the actress's notability is poor without any sources. It should enable any interested parties to re-write and source the article. EhsanQ ^(talk) 02:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject seems to have a busy carer but the only Ghits are these two extremely fleeting mentions in articles about other things: BBC and The Guardian which are nowhere near sufficient to conform to BLP policy. The subject may well be notable, but those are our rules. --Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after the latest updates to the article. The article is now largely sourced, and is therefore up to BLP (and notability) standard. Thanks to Fæ for finding sources to save this article. I hope it does get saved. --Der yck C. 01:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Declare conflict of interest: knows subject in real life.[reply]
Keep, now. Per WP:ENT, Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, two being "multiple". Meanwhile, per WP:GHITS, arguments for and against deletion based on number of Ghits are frowned upon. LondonStatto (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think kudpung meant gnews which is a far more reliable way of finding sources. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 9 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear evidence of notability via evidence presented and cited in article. Additionally: Demons are a girl's best friend by Sue Arnold The Observer, Sunday 5 January 2003 His Dark Materials R4 In Lulu Popplewell and Daniel Anthony we have more than mere credibility - we have genuine star quality. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Would be great if you can help put the extra information into the article! --Der yck C. 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Msrasnw.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PERNOM "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. " LibStar (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ENT requires signficant roles. there is not enough evidence of significant roles. no extensive third party indepth coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources seem to indicate to me a significant role (she is playing the lead character (blurb on the BBC) with Terence Stamp in a supporting role) in the dramatisation of Phillip Pullman's best seller on the BBC's Radio Four which is a major UK channel. Reviews in two UK national newspapers as well Claire Squires Continuum mentions would seem to me sufficient for the third party coverage. Her role as Daisy in Love Actually, although minor, would seem to be notable enough for actors. (We've been given our parts in the nativity play. And I'm the lobster. Daisy has the role of first lobster in the school nativity play) (Msrasnw (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Recent addition of three citations has established notability. Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 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.