Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay MacFarland

Lindsay MacFarland

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested CSD, Non-notable actress only had a few bit parts RMHED 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after having ironically speedied this once. I have no problem with bit-part actors as long as the movies were notable; Wikipedia is not paper. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The majority of her roles listed in this article are not listed on the Internet Movie Database, particularly Go (1999 film) for which the film is listed but she is not. Only one film in which she acted and for which her role is listed in IMDb has been released, that being A Lot Like Love in which she played "Gallery Patron." I don't think she meets the criteria at WP:BIO in part due to lack of verification of most of her roles. --Metropolitan90 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A model who would like to have a movie career. I don't think our readers really need to know the name of her pomeranian. (Answer: Copper) --Brianyoumans 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have a problem with bit-part actors being on here, as long as they have done work that can be seen (not just indie or student films). When I googled her, it seems as though she has done a lot of notable work (i.e. Lucky You, A Lot Like Love, Broken Promise). --71.137.249.228 20:38, 3 September 2006

comment There is no user Pr.girl. The above comment is from 71.137.249.228. IrishGuy ^talk 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a source of information for just about anything you choose, ranging from aerodynamics to Zion National Park and everything inbetween. Whether you choose to accept it or not, up-and-coming stars are another part of life in 2006, just as much as musicians, MySpace celebrities, or even criminals for that matter. As long as the information is accurate, then let's resort to the basic rule of thumb: no harm, no foul! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.72.97 (talk • contribs)
Keep 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC) How does it hurt anything on Wikipedia by keeping a bit actress on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.133.39 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Wikipedia articles should not be used to help lead to a "big break". As this individual has not had even medium roles in any notable films. For some films, as noted above, she is not listed at all. If she becomes more famous, then she can and should have an article, but I don't think she's notable just yet. Srose (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not evidence of notability has been presented. IrishGuy ^talk 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vain article created by single use account. Google search returns 250unique hits out of 1020, of which vast majority are film databases or imdb mirrors. Many of the details are unverified and unverifiable. She has played in 3 films per imdb, 2 of which unreleased. Ohconfucius 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe attacks this actress is undergoing here on this page negates the very essence of Wikipedia. They seem personal in nature and lack merit. The quality of the writing is acceptable. The article is written with a neutral point of view. The information can be verified by both on-line sources (IMDB) as well as hard copy sources (The Hollywood Reporter). This actress is acknowledged by the Screen Actors Guild as being a professional. Her face has been seen by millions of people, being that she has been in huge Hollywood films. She also has two new soon to be released notable films with character names credited, both on IMDB. The very fact that there are so many statements here shows that this person is someone of note, otherwise no one would bother. I for one would like to know more about an actress that could stir so much controversy. --InfoGuru