Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Pendleton

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 —Whouk (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rose Pendleton

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable, vanity bio; does not match Wikipedia:Notability requirements. No IMDB.com profile, and the only relevant Google hits were a self-run official website, Myspace, and online petition for said person to get a certain part Fabricationary 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom--Nick Y. 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on just the text of the article, all roles to date are an undisclosed commercial, home movies, model "bookings" and starring in a short film, which returns one google hit ([1]) to her myspace page noted by the nominator. Delete as copyvio. See http://rosependleton.com/biography.php --Fuhghettaboutit 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Biography is no longer a copyvio. -- Loserkidemx3

• Don't Delete Rose no longer runs her official site, she did last year but got way too busy this year. It's run by someone else. The biography was taken from her official site which is not run by her and therefore cannot be vain, which I looked up and you called Rose conceited. Actresses have MySpace's now days. Rachel Hurd-Wood has an official one why can't Rose? It doesn't look like it's ran by her as it's all done in thrid person. Besides Skandar Keynes is running his official site. Skye Sweetnam used to run her official site. Whats wrong with people running their own official sites? She really is an actress with those upcoming projects. IMDb.com doesnt have a lot of people listed. I think you should leave the page alone. --Loserkidemx3

Regardless of who runs her official site, she does not match the guidelines listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Until she does, she cannot have a Wikipedia article. Fabricationary 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The above don't delete vote is from author of article.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, I wrote the page, because I am a fan of Rose. The movies have official sites, why don't you go look. Rose has fansites you can visit, no, they are not run by me either. And I actually never got to finish the page, I am still working on it so it looks more legit.--Loserkidemx3

• Don't Delete Rose is a kind, considerate person. She's not vain or conceited. Plenty of celebs run their official sites or myspaces... why can't she? It's not necessary to delete her page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.110.214.2 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete a bunch of home movies a role in a podcast that hasn't been produced yet and a single unverified movie that seems to be a pipedream of a college student (c.f. WP:NOT) mean Ms. Pendleton is not yet notable. No doubt once her career flourishes she will have an article written about her, but until then she probably should not be covered in Wikipedia. Sorry, Gwernol 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I provided links to the official sites for her films in the past biography, unfortunately I was forced to rewrite it. Zombies Ate My Prom Date —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loserkidemx3 (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately this movie hasn't been produced yet, let alone been distributed and gained some level of recognition (like reviews in a major local or national newspaper). Being in an independent movie that's under development doesn't impart notability. Unless I've misread the significance of Zombies Ate My Prom Date? Gwernol 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It states that if the person has a large fan following. Rose has fansites on her. you can visit one Rose Online the owner is on a hiatus, but thats Rose. There are more as well.

• Comment The "fan sites" rose-pendleton.net and rosependleton.com both show in Whois as being owned by, you guessed it, Rose Pendleton herself. Fan1967 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Rose is very talented. She should be a part of Wikipedia so other people can realize how good of an actress she is. Just take a look at http://rose-pendleton.net and you will become a fan for certain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.125.213 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. DVD+ R/W 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Don't delete Rose's wikipedia page! She deserves one for the hard work she puts into her films. They may be small but every actress has to start out small and then grow!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.52.5 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. Not yet sufficiently notable for Wikipedia (but maybe one day). Zaxem 00:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If she's that good an actress and that great a person it's my hope she one day is notable enough to earn a page. But that day's not today. Voice of Treason 00:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as an nn bio. -- Kicking222 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We can add her back when she becomes famous and has some reliably verifiable information about her we can reference with an article. Fagstein 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. -- MarineCorps 02:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Delete Why very strong rather than just delete? Because there is essentially nothing on the page, what little is there makes it clear that there is nothing notable about this person and that her supposed notable undertakings have yet to occur. I'm gonna write a Nobel Prize winning book... some day. Can I have my WP page now? Ha! Didn't think so. Comments by her fans make it clear that the purpose of the page is promotional / advertising / vanity. Ande B 03:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Extremely nn. Actress and every single role fails IMDB search. These days even the lowest-budget indy works make it to IMDB. These don't appear to have been seen by anyone. Fan1967 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, she is not notable enough yet. Perhaps someday she'll be big, not playing "Yearbook Girl #1" in a small indie film. Grandmasterka 03:47, 28 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.