Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillian Parker

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lillian Parker

Not quite WP:CSD but does merit AFD discussion as to notability and WP:BIO J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP: Bio, the IMbD link alone is enough Crazynas 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Though I love Wes Anderson, I'm not convinced that this particular production assistant has sufficient notabiliy for inclusion. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.Bejnar 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ever look at a film's full credits? Hundreds and hundreds of names. Fame and notability are not conferred by minor association with the famous and the notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 08:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as non-notable – Gurch 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Does being a participant on a network "reality show" constitute sufficient basis for being "notable"? There are some very frivilous entries in Wikipedia, many of which are game show participants, few of whom will be remembered-Charles Van Doren exempted. In my opinion, Lillian Parker has a record, albeit a short one, of notable accomplishment. She has produced a feature film, as well as working with Wes Anderson. Let's look at someone like Cindy Sheehan, who in reality is no more than a figurehead used by moveon.org, and really has no notable accomplishments of her own. Why is she notable? Solely because she is on the news? Why not just start notablepedia? Cindy Sheehan, Spuds MacKenzie, and the man in the question mark suit from the late night infomercials can all have extensive entries! Is notability by itself enough of a criteria for entry? Even though I authored the original entry, I will admit that Lillian may not have sufficient notability for entry if notability is a central criteria. I do think it is unfortunate that many totally undistiguished individuals are included on Wikipedia, while those who have succeeded in their creative quests, are exmpted from inclusion because they were not on MTV's 'Beach Party Real Life Survivor Apprentice 2006'. Perhaps pop culture needs it's own Wikipedia. If you've read this far, thank you for considering my viewpoint. I will use more discretion on future entries. Yakofujimato

• Delete - article does not establish notability. Perhaps if the previous poster would add to the article some information that would indicate more notability for Ms. Parker's work (and include references)... For the record, Yakofujimato, notability is a necessary condition for inclusion, but not necessarily a sufficient one. Please take a look at WP:BIO and see if you can show how Lillian Parker fits it. B.Wind 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Producing a film that has not yet been released or even been listed on the Internet Movie Database is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.