Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Crawford

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Closing as speedy keep and

WP:SNOW (by nominator). LibStar (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Louise Crawford

Louise Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. hardly any coverage for her "best known" role [1]. or her current TV role [2]. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
With respects LibStar, your twice using an
may very well have read the article or looked at sources or considered other comments here before offering their own succint answers. While you might wish more from them, their opinions, specially in context to other editor's comments, are valid even without expansion. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
if the editor has actually read the sources and article they should say that in an AfD, this is a simple courtesy and helps the closing admin as well. simply saying it's notable provides zero evidence is hardly helpful. they've considered other aguments I've seen often the same editor habitually write "it's notable" on numerous AfDs...you have to wonder if they're actually even reading the AfD or article. one editor who seemed not to like my nomination of various unrelated articles simply popped up at each one and said "it's notable". LibStar (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that editor will in the future provide a bit more of an explanation. Please know that I can understand your comment, specially considering the number of times I have myself seen a succinct "non-notable" as entirety of a comment at AFDs by editors other than yourself. I believe what we both would like are better explanations so that points might be further discussed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
totally agreed. I don't want AfDs to be
WP:JUSTAVOTE. simply saying "it's (non)notable" is totally insufficient. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
LibStar, the substance of several of your recent AfD nomination statements appears to be "does not meet
WP:BIO" (with no explanation for how you reached that conclusion, apart from a link to a search which you have restricted to Google News archives), and yet you seem to be chastising others for stating that the subject is notable and using Google links to demonstrate. I agree with you that just saying "it is notable" is a pretty weak argument and should be discouraged, but perhaps it would help your argument if you demonstrated more clearly how the subjects do not meet the criteria for inclusion or notability. --Canley (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I am a nominator in some cases, if you don't like my nomination feel free to provide arguments against. Google news is good way of finding media articles on sources. I generally do not use google, as mirror sites and passing mentions come up a lot. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 11 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louise_Crawford&oldid=1080202200"