Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. E. Lawrence

W. E. Lawrence

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article is sourced only to IMDb. IMDB is not reliable, it is also super comprehensive, so that inclusion and mention in it in no way shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As he had played significant role on that film which is mentioned on his filmography as all the films were in blue as well as all are notable films. Fade258 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Entirely agree with JPL that if IMBD is the only source here it should be deleted, however other sources appear available - A Biographical Dictionary of Silent Film Western Actors and Actresses p.202 has a potted biography of William E. Lawrence that gets into Sigcov territory. Lawrence was discussed in the newspaper article quoted in this books that borders on SIGCOV. This 1923 article in Picturegoer magazine also just about gets over the line for SIGCOV. I'll admit these are slim pickings but given the extensive number of films he is credited as appearing in I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that significnat coverage of hime exists sufficient to give a WP:BASIC pass. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources (now added to the article) - though this is borderline. The number of notable films he appears in makes the page worth keeping and adds to the encyclopaedia. A better BEFORE probably could have been performed before nomination. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above, with No WP:BEFORE done by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To find the key information that allowed me to uncover the other information provided above I had to page through several pages of results on GBooks. I think the criticism of JPL above is misplaced, particularly given the very low standard of sourcing in the article prior to the addition of the other references. I think we all agree that even with the new sourcing this is a borderline case, though I put it on the "keep" side of that borderline. The article should not have been created in its original, non-notable form. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]