Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Bennett (actor)

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 delete. A long and varied career makes one successful. A long and varied career captured by reliable sources makes one notable. She appears to fall more in the former category. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Bennett (actor)

Actor who appears to have only had small parts in several TV shows and short films. I could find no significant coverage whatsoever in either Google, Google News, or Google Books searches. The IMDB entry (the article's only source) does not suggest that she has reached an adequate level of notability as an actor. Michig (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is this item which is very brief about a play she wrote. That's it for sources about her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To get a good idea of her notability as an actor, see the IMDB entry - most parts are one-off small roles. In the two productions that on the face of it look most impresive, Torchwood and Stuart: A Life Backwards, she played "Female Teacher" and "Anne Campbell's PA" respectively - I think that says it all.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thought the same thing myself before I started digging. She has an interesting career as a
IMDB for anything. Got into it to see if there was the slightest chance... and am still working on it. Whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

She's had various theatre jobs and small acting roles, and one of her plays was nearly included in a festival, but I don't see any notability there. The tone of the article is misleading - most of the TV shows she appeared in are not award-winning, let along multi-award winning, and she only had minor roles, and the one award that is mentioned (the Golden Reel) was for sound editing, so nothing to do with her. Many of the "other projects" are just bit parts. Her website seems rather desperate, reprinting the cast list from the one episode of the execrable daytime soap Doctors that she appeared in. While I wish her luck in her career, she has nowhere near the notability required for an article here at present. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be frank, a claim that the shows were award winning seemed to require

WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As a user-editable site, IMDB is not a

reliable source

.

No, sorry... its Wikipedia that is a user-edited site. IMDB does accept "submissions" from readers as well as from industry experts, as well as the facts their own staff has researcged... and all such are vetted for accuracy before IMDB publishes. HOWEVER, the links above were only offered per "IMDB is acceptable as a starting point for further research" in order to show that the various shows seemed to have won awards... without my having spent the time to dig through dozens of differrnt databases to confirm what IMDB purports. No more. No less. I feel reasonably confident that each and every purported award can be verified multiple times in multiple reliable source outside of IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the awards for the programmes are genuine, but they're irrelevant as none of them are awards for Lorna Bennett or awards for things that she has made a major contribution towards. Some IMDB content is wholly written by the subjects themselves by the way. An article deleted last year pointed to a bio on IMDB as evidence of coverage, but the bio had been written entirely by its subject. I doubt that the IMDB staff go to the effort of verifying facts in those cases. I don't believe IMDB has ever been accepted as a reliable source here, but that's moot as far as this discussion is concerned as there's nothing there that indicates the notability of the subject of this article anyway.--Michig (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the list of appearances may seem impressive, there doesn't appear to be much more than bit parts.
talk) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete: Not quite at the level of
WP:ENT--It's me...Sallicio!
^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been in enough notable films and whatnot to be considered notable. Dream Focus 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see how a small number of small parts such as "Female Teacher" represents the significant roles as outlined in
  WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep She has an extensive CV, not only with the acting, but her playwrighting, directing and producing credits are significant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.236.158 (talk)
Delete Utterly fails
WP:ENTERTAINER's rules on notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Insufficient independent recognition to be N. – Zedla (talk) 23:25, 20 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.