Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (comedian)‎

:{{la|Laura Davis (comedian)}} ([{{fullurl:Laura Davis (comedian)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (comedian)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

There was no consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (Female Comedian), in part because of a Keep without Prejudice !vote based on an editor's assertion that the article would be improved. It hasn't. Editing has ceased (except for a SPA who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Davis_(comedian)&diff=276255020&oldid=275987620 tried to remove the birthday]). This is a non-notable stand-up whose claim to notability is "won the Raw Recruit in the 2008 Raw Comedy competition." Judging by how few of the previous winners of the overall competition have gone on to independent notability, it's quite questionable whether winning Raw Comedy is a "notable award or honor," but even if it were, she didn't win: she got a consolation prize as the best first-time entrant--a prize that isn't even described in the Raw Comedy Wikipedia article. That's twice-removed from notability. There is no substantial independent press coverage, and it reads as a cross between an advertisement and a directory entry. All the sources are press releases or a sentence or two in a larger article. This isn't going to improve unless lightning strikes and she's the one in a thousand standups who becomes notable. THF (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Last AfD was about 20 days ago, this is a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. See also WP:TIND.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Huh? Your only reason for !voting Keep last time was that it might be improved. It was your comment in the original AFD that said that this should get renominated for deletion if it didn't improve. It didn't improve. So why did you change your opinion? There were a total of four !votes without consensus, so this is a legitimate relisting, and what has changed since the last listing is that the original author's claim that the article would be improved to meet WP:N was proven wrong. So why do you think this meets WP:BIO? THF (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::THF, 20 days is not enough time to judge.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::::So tell me how this article is going to be improved. It's not being edited. It's an orphan. There aren't any reliable sources to add. What the heck? THF (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::As I said about three weeks ago the last time someone raised this at AfD, an editor has made a good faith assertion that the article's being worked on. Let them do that. Bring it back after a reasonable space of time, please.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::The editor (who has admitted a COI) worked on it. The editor has effectively acknowledged that he is not going to work on it further. There's nothing more for them to do because there are no reliable sources to add. Why is waiting a month going to matter? THF (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::That editor has, yes, but I was talking about Konsole4.2's assertion in the previous AfD.

As for "there are no reliable sources" — I accept that you can't find any (and I can't find any either), but it's a logical fallacy to assert that because we can't find sources, sources don't exist.

I agree with you, and I've always agreed, that the article should be deleted if no sources appear in a reasonable space of time. All we're disagreeing about is whether the time since the last AfD is "a reasonable space of time".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::Keep There is no deadline. Tag it as a stub/for expansion, or if you don't think it currently meets the standard for WP then fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::It's not fixable, at least not until the subject of the article actually meets Wikipedia notability standards. That's why it should be deleted. Shall I make an article about my ten-year-old cousin on the theory that she might be notable someday, and there's no deadline to improve the stub? THF (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::There is a disagreement on whether the awards are notable, you say it's not others said it is. Unless your cousin won any awards, or appeared in the newspaper for some reason, such a disagreement is unlikely to occur in a discussion about an article regarding him/her. Unless something blatantly meets speedy deletion criteria, it should get a chance to be salvaged. -- Mgm|^(talk) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::My brother won "3rd funniest comic in Austin" one year, and maybe someone will buy his screenplay. There's a stub for the future. THF (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If you disagree with the outcome of the previous deletion DRV is the way to go. When people get a chance to improve an article, they should be given more than just two weeks. (Writing a good article takes time) Renomination of a page should occur no sooner than one month after the previous debate unless a DRV discussion says otherwise. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::Again -- the previous AFD was not "Keep", it was "No consensus." There's nothing to DRV, because that no-consensus decision was correct, there wasn't a consensus. We now have further evidence that the original deletion nomination was correct -- and that is proven by the fact that not a single "Keep" !vote has given a reason that this article shouldn't be deleted. THF (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Delete if no improvement very soon: I generally go along with "If in doubt, give it a chance", but I think nom is right on this one, just a bit premature. On present showing this woman is just not notable (of course in a year's time she might be but let's wait till she is) so there is no point at all marking it as a stub for expansion. I don't agree either with your analysis of the time issue: there has been quite enough time, if anyone were serious/in good faith about it, for at the very least some token of the possibility of progress to be given - and there has been nothing. The original "rescue" date was 12 March: give it another month - ie, until 29 April 2009, for the avoidance of doubt - and then if it's still no better, it should go. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless a miracle happens and the article is improved so that notability is clearly evidenced apart from her one event. Empty promises at AfD are too-common these days and since nothing was done after the last AfD it must be concluded that either the article is insalvageable, or nobody is willing to do the work. Neither of these bode well for a BLP. ThemFromSpace 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, she won an award at a competition that itself doesn't seem all that notable (Raw Comedy is itself up for deletion). The case for notability doesn't look all that strong. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Subject passes general notability (assuming http://www.chortle.co.uk/shows/melbourne_2008/r/15994/raw_comedy_final_2008/review/ counts as a reliable source, which it probably does, just), but she does not appear to have appeared in numerous notable shows or have a wide following, and thus fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMO, the article has had its chance.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- Getting a minor place in a comedy competition that is itself only borderline notable does not seem to me to be a convincing argument that this person is notable. No prejudice against recreating the article if she ends up becoming a successful comedian. Reyk _YO! 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. If it was judged 20 days ago to have potential for improvement, then it still has potential for improvement. AfD is about removing articles that don't. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

::*This is a false premise. It wasn't judged 20 days ago to have potential for improvement. It was judged "no consensus." I'm still waiting for anyone to show how this article can be improved given the lack of reliable sources. THF (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Regardless of the specific terms of the decision, there was a previous AfD on this that resulted in a Keep less than a month ago. You claimed above that the no consensus keep was an incorrect result because it was predicated on the claim by certain editors moving to keep that the article could be improved. 20 days isn't long enough to wait to show that was a false premise. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

::::It did not result in a keep. It resulted in "no consensus." !Voting "keep" because the earlier decision was no-consensus is a complete non sequitur. There's no Wikipedia policy against back-to-back AFD nominations when the earlier nomination by a different editor resulted in no-consensus. WP:NOTAGAIN is not a reason to keep an article that flunks WP:N and cannot be improved. THF (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Three weeks is ample time for improvement to become noticeable. Nom is right that we might as well start making stubs for newborns, because some of them will some day become notable for sure. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2009 (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.