Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marysia Kay

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marysia Kay[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per extensive filmography status. and overall notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a long list of film titles in the article but the notability of the vast majority is at best unclear, as is the significance or notability of her part in most of those thereof. Of the apparently notable films, notability of her part is without any indication or citation and, from what I can find, not possible to support. Doddy Wuid (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm lets wait and see what some other users say.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Ill still say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one "keep" per customer BabbaQ, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This one is hard to assess, which isn't surprising considering it's been relisted twice. Going through the credits list, the vast majority are very minor roles. As an example, the credits list Stardust, which is technically true, but only as a "Clare Danes photo double" [1]. What is more telling, is a search for news articlesm which usually brings up something, even for minor and less well known actors, for this actress brings up nothing, save for an unrelated theater director with a similar name.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disappointed to see this - although Marysia is a minor actress of major roles in very minor films - or vice versa - she's a notable link across a body of small budget horror films which have been successful enough to continue to be made when other genres fail to work at this level. They tend not to get news visibility but in aggregate represent a notable phenomenon, which some people (like me) follow and enjoy. (Hope I got this process right!) --CornyAgain (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneliusagain (talk • contribs) [reply]

As maybe but (no) news visibility equates to (no) significant coverage in reliable sources. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actors are considered notable based on their work, and she's been in enough notable works to qualify. Dream Focus 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor association (particularly undocumented minor association) with something notable patently does not make one oneself notable. Doddy Wuid (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2010 (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.