Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Coppock

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. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Coppock

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

Contested PROD, removed without comment by IP editor. Reason was " I'm having trouble seeing this lady as more than just a jobbing actress who is below the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion here. The lead shows no reason for inclusion, nor does the main body of text. Without any extra information I cannot see the value to WIkipedia of this article remaining." Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - This article clearly satisfies WP:GNG, specifically:

"Significant coverage" - Laurel Coppel's career as an actress involves at least 19 listed appearances on television and movies, each with proper citation. In addition, Laurel Coppel is listed in at least seven non-user-page Wikipedia articles, all of which pre-dated the creation of this article; that's the main reason this article was created.
"Reliable" - Two of the six cited references are newspapers, including one (The New York Times) that is generally regarded as an excellent independent and verifiable source.
"Sources" - There are six sources cited in the article, including two newspapers. A Google search reports several hundred other "hits" that could lead to many other sources.
"Independent of the subject" - At least four of the six cited references are independent of the actress and groups to which she belongs, including one (The New York Times) that is generally regarded as an excellent independent and verifiable source.
"Presumed" - As a new article only a few days old, having six references is pretty good, compared to other similar new articles. As time goes on, and more research is done, additional information about Laurel Coppel will undoubtedly be added by Wikipedia editors, and the number of references will increase.

To call this person "a jobbing actress" is short-sighted. Some of the most notable actresses started out with the kinds of roles Laurel Coppel has had. I strongly urge this article be kept. If we delete this one, there are hundreds of others with less-clear notability that would deserve the same fate. Truthanado (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The New York Times link is just licensed content that states that she appeared in a film. It's not an actual article about her. I removed two of the other sources, as they were not reliable: the IMDb and an promotional website. The Patch article looks like a local newspaper, and the Groundlings website is a primary source. She fails the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and I can not locate any other sources to establish notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a defense for this article, and she can get an article once she has become famous. Until then, it's WP:TOOSOON. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR as none of her roles appear to be very significant. Also, what the heck is this supposed to mean?: Rotten Tomatoes gives her a 78% rating for her role in Crazy, Stupid, Love with a total box office of $84.3M. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary - I'm all in favor of following Wikipedia guidelines. That's how/why I created the article and why I defended it with specific reasons for each of the items in WP:GNG. If someone wishes to refute those, how about using some specific arguments in the discussion rather than simply say that she "does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR"? I'll abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides ... let's all remember that Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus and discussion, not majority voting. Truthanado (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage. Only the Weston Patch source really devotes any info to her. The others are generic credit listings, which are not coverage at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [1] is just an advert, and not RS, [2] is not RS and has impossibly small information anyway, [3] actually shows she is not notable and is a similar advert to the first two, [4] may be RS, but is a passing mention and thus does not count, which leaves [5] with a more substantial piece. But local press is not generally viewed on its own a sufficient, and the article simply tells us that she is a run of the mill jobbing actress. When she becomes notable she may have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coppock is not a notable actress. She has had minor roles, many of them so insignificant they are not even given names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2013 (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.

NOT NOTABLE? SHE'S THE FRIGGIN' FACE OF TOYOTA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.108.54 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]