Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Lark (2nd nomination)

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 was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Lark

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The last discussion years ago was no consensus but I'm still not sure about the notability here. Note that this content was removed but ultimately it seems like she was known for a some film (and that's not even clear, the one blue link is for a 12-minute spoof that isn't related) and then for creating a website which doesn't seem notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD stated that the page's COI edits does not deem that it should be deleted and that the subject has a cult following in the horror genre. From a Google News search, it shows that she have news coverage in horror film websites and this can be concluded that she has a following but the coverage comes mostly from two sites, ShockTillYouDrop and HorrorMovies.ca, both of which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only good reference for her is this one in Complex [1] which covers her extensively but it is only 1 reference. Since the last AfD in 2011, no coverage has been added about her besides mere mentions. This, IMO, shows that she isn't notable and doesn't meet WP:N. She doesn't have "significant coverage from reliable sources" as 1 source is not enough. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as her works have nothing at all convincing for actual independent notability, simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rationale by @CerealKillerYum, which I adopt. Quis separabit? 14:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.