Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura-Leigh

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Leigh

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

Non-notable, only one credible source. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this actress has had roles in several television and film productions. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Note: I created this article. Per WP:NACTOR, one of several criteria that each individually suffice to establish an actor's notability is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The movies The Ward (by noted director John Carpenter and with an estimated budget of $10 million, albeit a critical and box office failure) and We're the Millers (estimated $270 million worldwide gross) easily qualify as notable films; Gossip Girl, Law & Order, and Numb3rs easily qualify as notable television shows; finally, a stage performance of the play Boy's Life which was reviewed in the New York Times probably qualifies as a notable stage performance (and note that this actress was mentioned by name in that review). Thus the only remaining question is what constitutes a "significant role". Clearly, a "significant role" is not the same as a top-billing, starring, or headlining role, otherwise the written criteria would use wording to that effect. It should be sufficient if the character has a name which gets mentioned by the other characters and the character has speaking lines in more than one scene and has multiple consecutive lines of dialog including direct interaction and dialog with the top-billed star of the film. That is the case with both of the above-mentioned films. I have not viewed the one-time guest appearances in the episodes of the TV series mentioned above, but in two of them the character is credited in IMDb with a first name and a last name (the third is merely credited as "Barista"), which likely indicates multiple speaking lines and actually playing a part in the unfolding of the plot. Finally, a role in a stage play is probably sufficiently "significant" if a New York Times review devotes one entire sentence solely to that character. The proposer has only provided a five-word boilerplate justification, and it is inaccurate at that, since IMDb and the New York Times already constitute two credible sources, and a small-town newspaper is a third credible source, at least for biographical details of a person from that town. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@P.T. Aufrette: while NYT is a credible source, IMDb is merely a listing. See WP:N and WP:IRS. Simply appearing in notable shows does not necessarily make an actor notable on their own. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that merely being listed in IMDb is enough to make an actor notable, only that it is a credible source as to which movies and TV shows an actor has appeared in. Regarding notability for actors, as I mentioned above, if there are multiple appearances in notable movies and TV shows then per the WP:NACTOR criteria it all hinges on what constitutes a "significant role". In connection with We're the Millers, I suggested some possible indicators that a minor role is not insignificant (e.g., a character whose name is introduced and has speaking lines in more than one scene, and has multiple consecutive lines of dialog in interaction with a main character), and you did not address that point. And the role in The Ward, specifically, was actually a co-starring role in an ensemble cast, and her name is fourth-billed in the opening credits: Amber Heard, Mamie Gummer, Danielle Panabaker, Laura-Leigh, Lyndsy Fonseca, Mika Boorem, and Jared Harris, in that order (you can find some ripped version of the movie on YouTube if you need to verify this, for instance here). There was also a co-starring role (sixth-billed in opening credits) in the direct-to-video parody movie Tooken and a role in the Jennifer Love Hewitt TV series The Client List (recurring character in season 1, series regular in season 2), and these productions meet the Wikipedia general notability guideline. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, borderline but has received some decent coverage and has several significant roles (notably a leading role in Carpenter's The Ward and as a regular in The Client List) enough to pass NACTOR. Cavarrone 10:46, 1 November 2016 (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.