Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Dees

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. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dees[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is an article on an actress who spend all her career in uncredited roles, with one exception. The exception is 4-minutes of standing in in a film for the lead actress who died during production. However they had someone else dub in the voice, so she was just a physical stand in. Our sourcing boils down to a "home town women makes big" coverage article that is predicting this will lead to true stardom, but that does not happen, another paper covering the incident because it is a rarity that someone dies during filming and you need to film them afterward, her papers having been archived, and a primary source on her birth. She clearly fails the acress notability guideline, because even if her one role was significant, that requires multiple roles, and all her other roles were so far from being significant they were not credited at all (it is not even clear she was credited for her stand-in). So I see no way that this article meets our inclusion criteria, and no way that our sourcing is enough in-depth to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had a by-lined obituary in The Guardian when she died in 2005.[1]. Combined with the other more contemporary coverage already in the article she meets WP:BASIC. pburka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Saratoga film was a big deal back in the day (New York Times from 1937), and the Guardian obituary is convincing in terms of enduring coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles in The Guardian and The New York Times are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by sources listed by prev. editors. Samsmachado (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (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.