- 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 keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Adele Lacy
- Adele Lacy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I did a decent trawling of local sources and failed to retrieve anything other than being mentioned as a trivial character in local theater-acts etc. and for partaking in a host of other routine stuff, in local dailies.Fails the subject notability guideline as well as our general notability guideline. ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - With significant roles in 3 films, When a Man Rides Alone, The Wyoming Whirlwind, and Vanishing Men, appears to barely pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ Onel5969: were they significant roles? I am not even sure that they are sourced but, for example, I couldn't find her named in the cast for Vanishing Men at AFI etc and she appears to have been mostly little more than a part of the chorus in other stuff. Even the wordpress external link notes her as an obscure, unsuccessful bit-player, although as per the talk page I am not sure how much weight can be attached to that. - Sitush ( talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I meant 42nd Street. I didn't check VM and have no idea of how significant her role in that may have been. - Sitush ( talk) 15:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- All 3 were apparently significant. While AFI doesn't list her in Vanishing Men, her role, that of Diane Nelson figures prominently in the plot synopsis. She's mentioned in articles about the film as well, such as The Film Daily. The other two films, she had leading roles.
Onel5969
TT me 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is weird. I've just noticed that the significant role bit of NACTOR relies on the notability of the movie per NFILM, which has some sort of cascading effect. We do not even have articles for two of the films you mention (yet). So, if the films are not yet deemed notable then the cascade fails. - Sitush ( talk) 15:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- And should the cascade even exist? WP:NOTINHERITED. As someone has recently suggested on my talk page, we're becoming IMDb. - Sitush ( talk) 04:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- All 3 were apparently significant. While AFI doesn't list her in Vanishing Men, her role, that of Diane Nelson figures prominently in the plot synopsis. She's mentioned in articles about the film as well, such as The Film Daily. The other two films, she had leading roles.
Onel5969
TT me 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NACTOR Notability does not mean just having a wikipedia article it means it could qualify for one and those films seem to qualify as nationally reviewed, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but how significant was she? And which were nationally reviewed? And why does a national review make the film(s) notable? This would be a straight GNG fail and it is only the usual stupidity and navel-gazing of flimsy topic-specific guidelines that alter that. Some are better than others, of course, but NBOOK, NFILM and NACTOR really are piss-poor. - Sitush ( talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- And was the review independent? The film and publishing worlds are notorious for mutual backscratching even today, as shown in almost every edition of Private Eye. - Sitush ( talk) 04:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note Please can editors remind themselves that the criteria at WP:NACTOR, in common with all biography inclusion criteria, are considered additional - the General Notability Guideline still needs to be met. Head over to WP:NACTOR and scroll to the top. It's not an either/or scenario. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-
Exemplo347, using the secondary criteria "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards," then yes, we can say that passing NACTOR can show notability. In order to establish NACTOR, we use the additional criteria of reliable sources to show the subject passes NACTOR. Notability is not black and white or "either or": there are shades of gray and we use all of the standards (as applicable) to decide as a group whether or not an article passes.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's from the paragraph entitled "Additional Criteria" and the paragraph immediately above it is the one I'm referring to. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-
Exemplo347, using the secondary criteria "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards," then yes, we can say that passing NACTOR can show notability. In order to establish NACTOR, we use the additional criteria of reliable sources to show the subject passes NACTOR. Notability is not black and white or "either or": there are shades of gray and we use all of the standards (as applicable) to decide as a group whether or not an article passes.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage is very minor. She does not pass the multiple significant roles in notable productions guidelines so we should delete. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: If someone is a lead in multiple films, and the notability of those films has been established, then it should be presumed that there would have been critical coverage/analysis of that lead's participation in multiple films. Lead roles in multiple notable movies means that WP:ATD can't be easily applied, and even a permastub article is somewhat useful and more pleasant than a permaredlink; WP is a hyperlinked encyclopedia. Her article really shouldn't have been created before one or both of the missing film articles were created/confirmed as notable, however, particularly since the sourcing used is poor (in particular, the Wordpress source that was a reference should not be used), and little is visible online. What RS information is there on her? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Three starring roles in very obscure films do not satisfy NACTOR. The rest of her sparse work, some in films I actually heard of and have seen, is all uncredited, which says it all. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes NPOV/NOR/V; has in-depth coverage in multiple RS over a long period of time both in her home state and outside. Kudos to Winged Blades of Godric, it does seem they made a good faith effort in their BEFORE. And Kudos to CaroleHenson for helping (continuing to help) clean the article up. Smmurphy( Talk) 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NACTOR#1 due to leading roles in Vanishing Men and When a Man Rides Alone. Thsmi002 ( talk) 15:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I think we can agree that she meets WP:NACTOR, it's down to meeting general notability guidelines. Vanishing Men was the turning point for me, it's clearly notable. Ifnord ( talk) 02:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:ACTOR, significant roles in notable movies. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:45, 6 June 2018 (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.
- 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 keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Adele Lacy
- Adele Lacy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I did a decent trawling of local sources and failed to retrieve anything other than being mentioned as a trivial character in local theater-acts etc. and for partaking in a host of other routine stuff, in local dailies.Fails the subject notability guideline as well as our general notability guideline. ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - With significant roles in 3 films, When a Man Rides Alone, The Wyoming Whirlwind, and Vanishing Men, appears to barely pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ Onel5969: were they significant roles? I am not even sure that they are sourced but, for example, I couldn't find her named in the cast for Vanishing Men at AFI etc and she appears to have been mostly little more than a part of the chorus in other stuff. Even the wordpress external link notes her as an obscure, unsuccessful bit-player, although as per the talk page I am not sure how much weight can be attached to that. - Sitush ( talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I meant 42nd Street. I didn't check VM and have no idea of how significant her role in that may have been. - Sitush ( talk) 15:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- All 3 were apparently significant. While AFI doesn't list her in Vanishing Men, her role, that of Diane Nelson figures prominently in the plot synopsis. She's mentioned in articles about the film as well, such as The Film Daily. The other two films, she had leading roles.
Onel5969
TT me 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is weird. I've just noticed that the significant role bit of NACTOR relies on the notability of the movie per NFILM, which has some sort of cascading effect. We do not even have articles for two of the films you mention (yet). So, if the films are not yet deemed notable then the cascade fails. - Sitush ( talk) 15:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- And should the cascade even exist? WP:NOTINHERITED. As someone has recently suggested on my talk page, we're becoming IMDb. - Sitush ( talk) 04:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- All 3 were apparently significant. While AFI doesn't list her in Vanishing Men, her role, that of Diane Nelson figures prominently in the plot synopsis. She's mentioned in articles about the film as well, such as The Film Daily. The other two films, she had leading roles.
Onel5969
TT me 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NACTOR Notability does not mean just having a wikipedia article it means it could qualify for one and those films seem to qualify as nationally reviewed, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but how significant was she? And which were nationally reviewed? And why does a national review make the film(s) notable? This would be a straight GNG fail and it is only the usual stupidity and navel-gazing of flimsy topic-specific guidelines that alter that. Some are better than others, of course, but NBOOK, NFILM and NACTOR really are piss-poor. - Sitush ( talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- And was the review independent? The film and publishing worlds are notorious for mutual backscratching even today, as shown in almost every edition of Private Eye. - Sitush ( talk) 04:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note Please can editors remind themselves that the criteria at WP:NACTOR, in common with all biography inclusion criteria, are considered additional - the General Notability Guideline still needs to be met. Head over to WP:NACTOR and scroll to the top. It's not an either/or scenario. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-
Exemplo347, using the secondary criteria "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards," then yes, we can say that passing NACTOR can show notability. In order to establish NACTOR, we use the additional criteria of reliable sources to show the subject passes NACTOR. Notability is not black and white or "either or": there are shades of gray and we use all of the standards (as applicable) to decide as a group whether or not an article passes.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's from the paragraph entitled "Additional Criteria" and the paragraph immediately above it is the one I'm referring to. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-
Exemplo347, using the secondary criteria "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards," then yes, we can say that passing NACTOR can show notability. In order to establish NACTOR, we use the additional criteria of reliable sources to show the subject passes NACTOR. Notability is not black and white or "either or": there are shades of gray and we use all of the standards (as applicable) to decide as a group whether or not an article passes.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage is very minor. She does not pass the multiple significant roles in notable productions guidelines so we should delete. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: If someone is a lead in multiple films, and the notability of those films has been established, then it should be presumed that there would have been critical coverage/analysis of that lead's participation in multiple films. Lead roles in multiple notable movies means that WP:ATD can't be easily applied, and even a permastub article is somewhat useful and more pleasant than a permaredlink; WP is a hyperlinked encyclopedia. Her article really shouldn't have been created before one or both of the missing film articles were created/confirmed as notable, however, particularly since the sourcing used is poor (in particular, the Wordpress source that was a reference should not be used), and little is visible online. What RS information is there on her? ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Three starring roles in very obscure films do not satisfy NACTOR. The rest of her sparse work, some in films I actually heard of and have seen, is all uncredited, which says it all. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes NPOV/NOR/V; has in-depth coverage in multiple RS over a long period of time both in her home state and outside. Kudos to Winged Blades of Godric, it does seem they made a good faith effort in their BEFORE. And Kudos to CaroleHenson for helping (continuing to help) clean the article up. Smmurphy( Talk) 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NACTOR#1 due to leading roles in Vanishing Men and When a Man Rides Alone. Thsmi002 ( talk) 15:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I think we can agree that she meets WP:NACTOR, it's down to meeting general notability guidelines. Vanishing Men was the turning point for me, it's clearly notable. Ifnord ( talk) 02:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:ACTOR, significant roles in notable movies. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:45, 6 June 2018 (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.