Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Cookson

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Cookson[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, actress is not notable. Article lacks the sources to proves her notability, not a single of her films have been released yet. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unref'd BLP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a couple of sources to eliminate the unreferenced BLP issue, so this AfD can run its full course. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but there is coverage about her, e.g. [1][2][3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I can appreciate the TOOSOON viewpoint, but the female lead in Kingsman is established and likely her breakthrough role. Deleting this now, only to have to re-write it again when the film generates public interest is just pointless make-work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added refs are ok. Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ~~not~~ now enough sources to establish WP:BASIC. I am One of Many (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this article was created too soon, but there's just enough coverage to at least make her notability debatable. I don't like "crystal ball" arguments that depend on upcoming sources of notability, but reliable sources have taken note of her casting. Plus, Screen International profiled her as a "star of tomorrow", which is something. Even if every film is canceled and her career never materializes, she's still got that, which is more of a claim to notability than many new articles make. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the many keep votes (or opinions?) I will adventure to say delete per WP:TOOSOON. It looks like she is going to be famous in 2015 but for what? For leading roles as an actress or maybe -I hope and pray not- because she had a car accident or something like that? I wouldn't hurry to make articles for "future notables". --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Some of the opinions above that state it might be too soon, but keep the article so that it does not need to be rewritten in the future seem to miss the point that that argument is an invalid argument in AfDs. If you think she will become notable in the future then have the article deleted and moved to a Userspace. It does not belong in Wikipedia if it is WP:TOOSOON. Also who says she will become notable - anything can happen in the meantime -- WP:CRYSTAL. Please also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL re AfDs. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient WP:RS to establish basic notability without WP:TOOSOON problems. --Jersey92 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm just not seeing it. (1) To address the question of GNG/BIO: A few announcements of her casting, but doesn't every casting announcement of a high-profile movie get press in trade magazines like Variety (which indeed just reports that she was cast and little more). The Stars of Tomorrow piece is ok, but again brief and I'm suspect of any short bio that prominently gives her manager's contact information. (2) But here's the bigger question. Let me assume, for a moment, that these sources are enough to scrape by GNG. That doesn't automatically mean there should be a stand-alone article if there's just not enough to write about. What can it say based on these sources -- what can it grow into based on these sources, without turning into a promotional piece filled with quotes and primary sourcing? That she is cast in these two movies; she was named a Star of Tomorrow? If there's not more to write, but we know that there will be, then that's precisely what WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:TOOSOON are for. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important actress, starring in films with Michael Caine, numerous references easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage, major roles. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2014 (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.