Talk:Lulu Popplewell

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, February 8 2011, see discussion.
Delete, March 12 2008, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Necessary?[edit]

Is this article really necessary? Do all seventeen-year-old schoolgirls have an article on Wikipedia? Suggest removal on the grounds of insufficient importance. Guy (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elegibility for Wikipedia entry.[edit]

As well as possessing her own acting credits this young actress is an occasional stand in for several popular young film actresses. Given the standing of her elder sister in the film industry, and her own popular profile (gained, in part, on her extensive travels,) it is clear Ms Popplewell has the potential to become more prominent in the near future. I should say it would be unwise to remove this entry as the young lady is definitely still on the way up in the film industry.

118.92.223.68 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading a lot of these and finding a couple of them slightly unbelievable. She is supposedly a stunt double for her sister, despite her being under 18 whilst the Narnia films were in production, and has stood in for actresses and actors, with some up to 9 years older then her.... all of which is unsourced and not mentioned in her IMDB profile. Possibly needs to be looked at a bit. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

I have removed all birthdate information from this article. Half of the world seems to think she was born in 1991, and half in 1993. IMDB claims 1991 and most sites I find seem to agree with that, but none of them (including IMDB) are really reliable sources. If someone can find a really reliable source for her birthdate please add it. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again, and her supposed full name which also is unsourced. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junk it and start again[edit]

Frankly this entry is incredible. Those things that might be true are tainted by the ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertions. Just because she "is definitely still on the way up in the film industry" is no justification for keeping this in its present form.88.105.6.165 (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]