Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Marion

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 delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Marion[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Breaktakingly obscure actress with just a handful of bit roles, half of them uncredited? Fails all notability standards going away, and one's left to wonder how anyone would bother creating an article on the subject, short of being the editor's grandmother. Pinging @User:TimothyBlue, because I'd be quite interested in why he declined a perfectly reasonable PROD on the subject. Ravenswing 18:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Bit parts in old movies, not meeting ACTOR or GNG. I can't find anything; likely more in paper sources, but her roles appear minor, so I'm not thinking we'll find much. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Uncredited parts in old movies does not equate to a significant contribution in her field. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every person who appears in front of a camera in any genre does not qualify for WP:Notability. She may eventually get to a point where she qualifies but she doesn’t yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well, with the subject's last screen credit being over sixty years ago (and that one was her only screen credit since the 1930s) -- never mind having died nearly forty years ago -- I'm thinking that she's pretty unlikely to do much to improve her notability. Ravenswing 17:33, 15 January 2023 (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.