Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Lovell

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 keep‎. as this is not the same article as the one that was nominated after improvements have been made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Lovell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant coverage found. She had three supporting roles in Full Moon Features films that have articles, but that does not seem to be enough - especially with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR for her significant roles (including lead roles) in at least Hideous!, Head of The Family and The Killer Eye, that are notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exact guideline says "Such a person may be considered notable if:", not that they are automatically notable. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And she is not automatically notable from three roles in three films when none of the roles received significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But do you allow me to think she is and to !vote according to the applicable guideline? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but do you allow me to voice my thoughts because AfD is not merely just a vote? SL93 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your thoughts were pretty clear in your rationale, but feel free, of course. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she does meet WP:NACTOR, I cannot find a single source mentioning her other than movie databases, so she does not pass WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are either not independent (words from co-star, an interview) and trivial coverage. One of the sources says, "This film (along with the aforementioned Hideous!) stars the beautiful Jacqueline Lovell, whose career came to screeching halt shortly after this film." Not only is a sentence not significant coverage but I would say that her career coming to a screeching halt shortly after a B-film speaks towards non-notability. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In less than 2 minutes, you've read all the sources added? Wow, I confess I am impressed. Anyway, begging to differ; even if her career as a b-movie star stopped it's sufficiently notable; and anyway again, I've added even more, and more exists, not that it is necessary imv. I disagree with almost everything you said but will leave it at that, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to read the full sources when I just need to use CTRl+F to search for "Jacqueline Lovell"? Why would I need to read full sources to know that something is an interview? Same with knowing that something is just a film database like IMDb and TV.com? SL93 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added (by the time of your first reply to me, I will check the new sources now) do not constitute significant coverage. Here is an analysis of them:

[1] Only two passing mentions
[2] This is unreliable per WP:IMDB
[3] This is an interview, so it is not independent
[4] This is a movie summary, and only makes three passing mentions of her
[5] Only one passing mention
[6] Only one passing mention
[7] Only one passing mention
[8] This is a movie, which is not independent of the subject
[9] Only two passing mentions
[10] Again, this is a list of movies, so not significant coverage
[11] This is another movie, which is not independent of the subject

Gödel2200 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analysis of the five new sources added, which still do not constitute significant coverage.

[12] Only two passing mentions
[13] This is an encyclopedia of movies, with only two passing mentions
[14] This source does devote a few sentences to talking about her, but this is only a review of her performance
[15] Only two passing mentions
[16] Only two passing mentions

Gödel2200 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tend to agree with the source analysis above; the best I could find was [17], it's not quite enough for notability. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR for her significant roles (including lead roles) in at least Hideous!, Head of The Family and The Killer Eye, that are notable productions. There is no added need to also satisfy GNG. The two are companion guidelines, GNG is not a trump card. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is not a clear cut case, but it is more on the delete side with not enough WP:RS coverage to meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through Head of the Family, Hideous! and The Killer Eye. Also has SIGCOV in Femme Fatales here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets requirements and has been improved since the nomination.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Many of the sources have been filled out, and while a few might be of lesser quality, overall there is significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and meets WP:NACTOR. There is significant coverage and definitely meets requirements.
Ashik Rahik (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2024 (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.