Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabel Richardson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Richardson[edit]

Mabel Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress who appeared as an uncredited extra in several films and shows no signs of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. This leaves the question as to whether she meets the general notability guidelines. There seems to be a lot of prose and sourcing here, but the majority of the references are not reliable sources:

  1. References #1 and #4 are IMDB, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb
  2. Reference #2 is her obituary. I can't read it all, but it is presumably a legitimate, reliable source, albeit one that does little, if anything, to establish notability.
  3. References #3, 5, 7, and 8 are all links to historical documents. These are original research and do not contribute to the requirement of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. They just prove that her existence was documented by government records.
  4. Reference #6 is coverage of her 109th birthday. Again, I can't read it all, but presumably this is a legitimate, reliable source as well that does little to establish notability.
  5. Reference #9 has nothing to do with her. It just shows who the world's oldest person was when she was alive, a trivial and irrelevant detail.

The text, for the most part, is full of material that inflates what is available in the "sources", but doesn't actually add much content. This article does not meet the general notability guidelines, nor any specific ones, and thus should be deleted. Canadian Paul 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only real claim to notability is being the longest-living film actor, and that's "supported" only by IMDb trivia (ugh). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that being an actress and a supercentenarian combined is sufficient to keep her article. Futurist110 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Press-Telegram articles cited are independent, reliable sources that attest to Richardson's involvement in the historically notable film The Ten Commandments. While not a star in her own right, she did serve as a stand-in for starring roles. Admittedly, the sources do not describe Richardson as the oldest Hollywood actor, so the article should focus more on her film career rather than on her advanced age (although it still seems reasonable to keep her name in the list of centenarian actors). Note that I removed references #1 and 4 (iMDB), references #3, 5, 7, and 8 (historical documents), and reference #9, so arguments for deletion on those bases no longer apply.Miskatonik (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is enough here to suggest she should qualify, such as her unusual age. Certainly not a clear case against her inclusion. So keep, please.Sophiahounslow (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Both her age and her profession should be sufficient enough to merit an entry. However, I think more about her career needs to be fleshed out. ExRat (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete living a long time doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and neither does being a bit-part actress. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As being the person who first brought Mabel Richardson to attention, I guess I'll have to say what I think. Basically, being a 110-year old does not meet the notability criteria. Being a bit-part actress in two films does not meet the notability criteria either. However, the combination between those two aspects puts her in a unique position. So that's her claim to fame, being the only supercentenarian to appear in a real movie. The closest we've got right now is Vittoria Crispo, if she is alive, then she will be 108 years old very soon. OscarLake (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep oldest actress ever to appear in movie? Record holder. Notable. Listmeister (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that you have misread her (dubious and unsourced) claim to notability. She was not the oldest actress ever to appear in a movie, she was the actress who lived the longest after appearing in a movie. Allegedly, of course, since there is no reliable source anywhere that claims this record (incidentally, this distinction could also go to Jeanne Calment, who appeared in a documentary at the age of 120). Canadian Paul 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I got that. I should have said longest-lived actress. I didn't know about Jeanne Calment, but if she was the subject of the documentary, that would not count as being an actress. Still a record. Still Notable. Listmeister (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is also worth noting that Richardson appeared in films when she was young. Futurist110 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mabel_Richardson&oldid=1069522176"