Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Coulter

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Coulter

Lacks V, RS and Notability. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article should be allowed to exist and be improved upon. The actress's body of work, including frequent appearances on BBC television, is "notable" enough to include in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In which case please add the info and the references. Kittybrewsterx ☎ 07:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still learning about Wiki so perhaps it would be helpful if you explained to me what you mean by V or RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS. Are you Claudia? - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator makes no indication they applied WP:BEFORE. AFD is not a place to force cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have found no V or RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not Claudia for christ's sake. However, I have a question and, since you have taken an apparent vested interest, maybe you can help. I was under the impression that imdb.com was considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Am I wrong? If so then I might have to scrap the article after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.173.122 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking. WP:COI and WP:CIVIL. IMDB is a start. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty, I have attempted to cite imdb.com as a reference. I will try to find some time over the next couple of days to make certain that i have cited that source (and others I will attempt to find) properly. Perhaps, after this, I will have learned enough to contribute further. My degree is actually in psychology so perhaps I can move on to more serious content when I have learned how to contribute something simple such as this article.--71.176.173.122 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)--71.176.173.122 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete With only some appareances as a minor character she fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers at the moment. However note that Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources were clearly met from the first version of the article and are no reason for a nomination.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability and yes I looked. Furthermore, the article does indeed fail verifiability and reliable sources at this time. The only sourced information is her appearance in certain productions. Clearly not notable. When she becomes notable and there are sufficient reliable sources for verifiability, then let there be an article. I hope she gets a starring role in a hit film and becomes rich and famous but in the meantime she shouldn't get a Wikipedia article. If there are sources, let someone show them. Drawn Some (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom's lack of WP:BEFORE (sorry Kitty). WP:V and WP:RS were easy to meet... so I just did so. Perhaps WP:N can be found in her stage work, if not film. She did receive some nice reviews for her work in The Witches Hammer. Care to seek them out? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the four cited references in the article, I can find no mention of the subject in the first one (other than as a search result); and the other three are just bare listings of her name in the credits for productions. The article fails WP:GNG as lacking evidence of "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then unfortunately, you did not look throuroughly, as she is in most definitely IN all 4 refs. First point here is that the nom said she failed WP:V and WP:RS and those two claims were provably incorrect, showing lack of diligent WP:BEFORE. Second point is that a diligent search of the films for which she is credited or the stage plays she has been in might well show greater coverage of her roles... and with The Witches Hammer having wide reviews, I can imagine her work as "Rebecca" was itself covered... which would then meet GNG. No one here asserts such sources DO NOT EXIST... only that they do not see such added to the article. Since Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE and does not expect to be perfect, the article should have been sent to WP:CLEANUP for further work... and as noted by Mgm, not sent to AfD to force such improvement. Bad form. Third point, as I have just begun looking at T.W.H. reviews, and she and her character of Rebecca are in ALL of them... somtimes in great depth. No one else even looked?? Bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that the rationale "There might be sources someplace" is considered sufficient by some of the members of WP:ARS; but I don't consider it so, and WP:GNG would suggest otherwise. I'm of the opinion that this might be a put-up-or-shut-up situation. Deor (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting rebuttal... specially since I am not saying there "might" be anything. What I am saying is that there ARE reviews that speak of her and her role as Rebecca in The Witches Hammer. Is it that you do not wish yourself to look at the multiple film reviews HERE? And that you are of the opinion that I go to them all and present them to you one by one by one? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I look at the list of films she has been in, and notice which ones are blue links. It was already decided in a recent AFD that The Witches Hammer was a notable film, and thus the star actress in it as notable as well. She played a significant role in a notable film, which meets the notability guidelines for actors. Dream Focus 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails bio, entertainer. That a person has appeared in a film that may be notable does not make them notable. No coverage of substance beyond the trivial, no major awards won, not viewed as having made a significant contribution to her field (though i hear her cameo on Footballer's Wives led Glenda Jackson to declare "we have uncovered the next great acting talent." Unfortunately, that's just a rumor) or otherwise achieved wide fame, acclaim or infamy. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be what I call "not yet notable". Perhaps Ms Coulter's fame will explode next month.... and when that happens, then we will of course have an article on her. But until that happens, no. Delete. DS (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer please note the incorrect logic. Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant roles in a notable films is a claim to notability here and is easily verified, which gives her a pass per WP:ENTERTAINER, which specifically states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". She has. Its been verified. And agin... no one has told me the did not find she or her character of Rebecca from The Witches Hammer spoken of in all these many reviews... Fatally-Yours, Best Horror Movies, Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy Film Review, Twitch Film, Evil Dread, Far East Films interview with The Witches Hammer cast and crew, Beyond Hollywood, Horror 101, Eat My Brains, DVD Resurrections, Cinema Crazed, Razor Reel, and many more... so I can only guess that folks are opining delete without due consideration of WP:BEFORE or any attempt to see if she is being reviewed by experts in the genre. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS. Meets WP:ENTERTAINER with Witches Hammer's major role and other roles. Arguments above that this isn't verifiable are, well, interesting. Those !votes should be ignored as being factually incorrect. That she doesn't pass GNG is debatable, but also irrelevant as she does pass the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MQS, GNG and SNG don't exist. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Good point. MQS is MichaelQSchmidt, WP:GNG is the general notability guideline. SNG is the subject notability guidelines, in this case WP:ENTERTAINER. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (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.