| Revision as of 19:18, 12 May 2016 editMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,219 edits Closing debate, result was speedy delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:43, 12 May 2016 edit undoHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits →Lisa Burns: speedy keep (adding content lost in edit conflict)Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ::::* {{pagelinks|Louise burns (child actress)|Louise burns}} | ::::* {{pagelinks|Louise burns (child actress)|Louise burns}} | ||
| ::::* {{pagelinks|Lisa burns}} | ::::* {{pagelinks|Lisa burns}} | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep'''. What should be going on here is a rational discussion of the form of coverage, not simple deletion. The two actresses involved what have come to be seen as iconic roles in a highly notable film, with their performance/appearance attracting significant critical discussion, as noted in the main article on the film. It doesn't take much effort to turn up relevant discussion in the reviews and commentary which accompanied the film's release, in a TV documentary in 1999, on popular culture websites, in scholarly pieces like "The Uncanny, The Gothic and The Loner: Intertextuality in the Adaptation Process of The Shining", on American TV a few years ago, , and in a relatively lengthy British newspaper profile last fall. Coverage which persists for decades is a strong, strong indication of notability. To my mind, the best solution would be for there to be an article about the role itself, perhaps ]. with the short, existing bios merged into it. Second best would be to put such content into the article on the film itself. Third choice would be to simply redirect the actress articles to the film itself, just as we've done with much less notable reality TV "personalities" and the occasional porn performer. Given that even the nominator acknowledges elsewhere that the roles "had a significant effect on pop culture", pure deletion should be a nonstarter. ] (]) 19:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *I've deleted the articles under CSD G5 as they were created by a sock account. I've salted the various titles as well. Please let me know if I missed any of them.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC) | *I've deleted the articles under CSD G5 as they were created by a sock account. I've salted the various titles as well. Please let me know if I missed any of them.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
Revision as of 19:43, 12 May 2016
- 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Ponyo, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Lisa Burns
- Lisa Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am bundling the deletion for both sisters together because of their joint roles and because I could not find anything distinguishing either from the other in the future.
- Louise Burns (child actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These sisters only played a role in The Shining and before that a one-episode appearance in Kids. This is not enough to meet the notability guidelines for actors which requires significant roles in multiple media. After this, they both retired to become a lawyer and a scientist. The subjects also do not meet the general notability guidelines because there is not in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is an interview with the Daily Mail and some articles saying "what do they look like now?", but those are only applicable to notability for one event, and are not enough to write a verifiable biographical article about their lives and careers.
Lastly the articles should be salted due to continuous recreation despite having been speedy deleted multiple times before without any changes to indicate notability. Opencooper (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:NACTOR. As they retired, no additional notability is expected. Scr★pIron 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt Several previous speedy deletions should have been sufficient to stop the need for this AFD but, as we are here, in no way shape manner or form do these articles meet WP:GNG. A TV show and A film still qualify as WP:ONEEVENT. MarnetteD|Talk 16:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note should this AFD result in salting it would be a good idea - considering the continual recreation by the editor - to salt these as well. MarnetteD|Talk 16:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. What should be going on here is a rational discussion of the form of coverage, not simple deletion. The two actresses involved what have come to be seen as iconic roles in a highly notable film, with their performance/appearance attracting significant critical discussion, as noted in the main article on the film. It doesn't take much effort to turn up relevant discussion in the reviews and commentary which accompanied the film's release, in a TV documentary in 1999, on popular culture websites, in scholarly pieces like "The Uncanny, The Gothic and The Loner: Intertextuality in the Adaptation Process of The Shining", on American TV a few years ago, , and in a relatively lengthy British newspaper profile last fall. Coverage which persists for decades is a strong, strong indication of notability. To my mind, the best solution would be for there to be an article about the role itself, perhaps Grady twins. with the short, existing bios merged into it. Second best would be to put such content into the article on the film itself. Third choice would be to simply redirect the actress articles to the film itself, just as we've done with much less notable reality TV "personalities" and the occasional porn performer. Given that even the nominator acknowledges elsewhere that the roles "had a significant effect on pop culture", pure deletion should be a nonstarter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've deleted the articles under CSD G5 as they were created by a sock account. I've salted the various titles as well. Please let me know if I missed any of them.--Jezebel's Ponyo 18:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.