Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Nogueira/vote2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lorna Nogueira

This page survived VFD once, but I think it warrants being voted on again. This is a completely non-notable actress in non-notable independent movies. She's in the same class as Eric Bruno Borgman. These are all part of a concerted and detailed push to market a bunch of independent film makers and actors in Massachusetts (many of the articles have since been remade in the User Namespace by users that have conspicuously few edits). I'm quite sure that Lorna slipped through the cracks of the VFD process the first time. Kevin Rector 04:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. (The previous nomination is now at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lorna Nogueira/vote1.) —Korath (Talk) 04:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article is extensively expanded before the end of the VfD voting period. The fact that such an article seems to remain untouched until it is nominated for VfD would suggest that the thin claim to notability it might have is unjustified. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have no connection to Borgman or Legge despite the distasteful unfounded comments made by two editors in a previous VfD that implied I had a connection with him/them. So my question to the proposer is this. How is using VfD to constantly ground down people into voting delete with nomination after nomination each time they dont get their way on this, no different that making claims that there is some concerted push to have these actors being included in Wikipedia? Megan1967 05:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a very fair comment but I think the fact that the previous vote ended in "Delete 3 / Keep 3: No consensus." is grounds for a second vote. If the vote had ended with keep that would be a different matter. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly unnotable. Xezbeth 07:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though not a mega-star, she's a notable enough actress for an article. According to her IMDB entry, one of her roles was a starring role (as the title character in Honey Glaze), and her other role has 3rd billing, which isn't bad. Also scores a respectable 2,140 Google hits. I also agree with Megan1967 on this one, this seems to be some sort of VfD-by-attrition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read Honey Glaze's vfd before taking it as evidence of notability; the article is a very similar case to this one. Also, if you place your google search in quotes, there are only 161 hits, including a number of Wikipedia mirrors; otherwise, most of the hits are about as on-topic as this one. No change of vote. —Korath (Talk) 16:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Korath is correct, I forgot the quotes this time when Google searching. Still, the first few pages of results were on-topic, and show that she's listed at IMDB, TV Tome, etc. Honey Glaze is an indie film to be sure, but its release on DVD though traditional sales channels shows that it's a real production (and its article survived VfD, by the way). To an actor, having a starring role in a released movie is roughly the equivalent of a band having a released album or an author having a published book, and we would generally keep those. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • In this case I would compare it more to a member of a band that has released a single album, and we generally do not have articles for them. -R. fiend 17:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In reference to above, not every released album and published book deserves to be listed here. There isn't space enough on the collective internet to give a whole page to every actor with a straight-to-video release. --Asriel86 18:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal keep. I tried to add some more information, but there's not a lot out there. — RJH 18:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable actor's vanity page. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - as much as I'm partial to independent films and such, less than 200 Google hits each for her and her film is simply too puny - even if you try to stretch it. Maybe if enough of her friends go and put up enough fan sites (or her enemies put up hate sites) in the next few days I'd be convinced to change my mind. And the author/s should go ahead and save a copy of this article and the Honey Glaze one so that they can be reposted here if she and her first film ever do become more noteworthy. --Blackcats 06:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, staring in an independent film is sort of like making a web comic or writing a blog, unless its hugely popular then it doesn't have the audience to warrant an article under the criteria for biographies, and that is the case for Lorna--nixie 06:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree there, or at least I think you need to be more clear with your definitions... If an "independent film" was shown at art house theaters across the country and/or it was shown on the Independent Film Channel, or something like that, I think that would deffinately be enough to be considered noteworthy, even one might not consider it to have been "hugely popular." I just want to clarify that I'm voting to delete this article (and the Honey Glaze one too if/when its turn comes up again) here because of the overwhelming evidence of this particular case. I'm not endorsing any sort of campaign to rid Wikipedia of any other articles on independent films, unless the evidence against their noteworthyness is about as strong as it is here. --Blackcats 18:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 07:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Calling these movies "independent films" is giving them too much credit. They are much more like home videos which have been distributed on the internet. Lorna was not even paid for her "starring role", I have strong reason to believe. -R. fiend 17:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like non-notable. Grue 18:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appearing in films with no distribution is not notable, even by general standards in VfD where being in the entertainment industry is often treated as being more notable than being a businessman or academic. Average Earthman 20:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is misleading and false both movies listed in the article about her Democrazy and Honey Glaze have been and still are being distributed. They are released by Sub Rosa Studios they have released and distributed hundreds of DVDs. Here is a link with some information: Sub Rosa Studios

• Keep. Theres no real harm in keeping this page up since it provides information on an actress who is somewhat notable. CalveroTheFlame
  • User first edit was yesterday; this is his tenth. —Korath (Talk) 09:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • User first edit was yesterday, true, but none of the earlier edits concerned Lorna Nogueira. No reason to suspect Sock-Puppetry.. Good faith, and all that. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • On Democrazycruft? There's no reason in the world to suspect good faith for an obvious sockpuppet created after the vote started. —Korath (Talk) 18:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a perfectly legitimate article. There have been far less notable actors who have entries on wikipedia. Leanne 09:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP!! absolutely! Plank 17:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 16:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's amazing how the vfd of a Democrazy-related vanity draws accounts that have made zero edits for months, and no substantial edits ever, back to Wikipedia, isn't it? —Korath (Talk) 17:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Wherever Kevin Rector goeth so goeth Korath! Now that's amazing. I don't fancy being made out to be a puppet by the likes of you socks! FroggyMoore 23:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thou hast condemned thyself ere the mark of the sock hast been cast upon thou. -R. fiend 04:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 03:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So what even IF it there's a push by independent film actors? As long as the article is NPOV, doesn't it hold? -- Natalinasmpf 02:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.