Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Swift

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Swift

This former child actress with minor TV and film roles appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO; no significant coverage in reliable sources is cited and I could not locate any. Jfire (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantial reliable sources found apart from the IMDB site. She does not have a cult following, no major roles or contributed anything unique to the entertainment industry. --DFS454 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her appearance in Audrey Rose (film) does appear to be major, but she's completely unverifiable on the web. I think that since she's from the pre-web era, we might have better luck if someone could search paper archives or LexisNexis (currently don't have access myself) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I understand Mgm's position, I'm going to put the onus of proof on the article's creators and vote delete until its proved otherwise. --Bobak (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- reserving judgment at the moment, but I can produce references for her existence and her appearance in Audrey Rose via web link, if you'll accept any of these: [1] [2] [3]. They aren't ideal references but they might be the best we'll get online.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first reference is unreliable, the second one questionable (but I'd be happy if I was proven wrong). The third one seems acceptable and even shows her importance to the plot. One important role does not an article make, but it's a possible stub and might be expandable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On further reflection I agree with MgM.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she did star in these programmes though she's not active much now (if at all), she was main cast of Audrey Rose film. I think she should be in the Wiki as some of the films she starred in are.--Artypants (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Artypants, as she had made several movie appearanced over a 17 year time span. Also, the Internet movie Database offers a decent amount of information on her, and is a reliable source. When any person is mentioned in any wikipedia article, it's always better to have their name link to further information about them. By not doing so, it just potentially causes many wiki users to run into a dead end. Even though this information on her is minimal, it's better than no information at all. While reading wiki articles, I find there to be nothing more irritating than coming across a name that interests me, and not being able to click on it for more information.--Steve406sbc (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:59, 16 February 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.