Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Darrin

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Darrin[edit]

A disputed PROD. This actress had one small but memorable role in The Big Sleep but she is not credited in its cast list, nor, according to IMDB, is she credited for five of the seven roles listed in this article. There is very little information about the actress and I was unable to find anything about her personal life on Google. I take no position here (and have waffled about the article through proposed speedy/PROD stages) but bring it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of verification from RS, "best remembered" for a role that's minor and uncredited seems to me persuasive for deletion. Happy to revise if further verification of notability is provided. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After poking around, I can't seem to find any reliable sources about her, and I don't think having an uncredited role in a movie makes you notable. Cool3 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Changed to keep, appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER as per Big Bird. Cool3 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Her roles in Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large, I believe, qualify as significant and the two films qualify as notable. Granted, the article would be much better off with a few solid references but those are likely to take somewhat longer to find. Since this subject lived in an era without internet, the vast majority of sources on her are likely to be printed in books, newspapers and magazines rather than being posted on the internet. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two films cited have a Wikipedia article, throwing their notability into question. As for references in older publications, I've run her through some newspaper databases that go back to the 40s and 50s and I don't find anything. Cool3 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Wikipedia article is not a threshold of notability for films, rather it is Wikipedia:Notability (films). The films qualify under that criteria. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the assessment of films for notability; could I trouble you to elucidate as to how the two films, Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large, qualify as notable? Accounting4Taste:talk 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bury Me Dead meets criterion 1 by being widely distributed and receiving full length reviews from two or more nationally known critics; see reviews by Jeffrey Anderson and Gregory Meshman. Federal Agent at Large meets criterion 2.1 by being featured in two articles/publications that were published more than five years after the film's initial release; see here for titles and dates of those publications. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sold. Cool3 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your trouble; both those resources were previously unknown to me but seem as though they would be valuable in a number of situations. I agree that Bury Me Dead is notable for the reason you've given -- does it matter that Sonia Darrin is not mentioned in either review? (I'm not trying to be unhelpful here -- as the article's talk page says, I have a clear memory of her appearance in The Big Sleep and consider that evidence of notability -- in fact, she played the role better than Joan Collins did -- I'm just trying to understand the criteria that apply. This situation seems like it's teetering on the edge, and I want to know what evidence can legitimately be brought to bear in similar situations in the future.) Again, I do thank you for your trouble; if you can't be bothered with this further, I will suggest that this be closed as a Keep. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. She would not need to be mentioned in the reviews, she would merely need to have a "significant role" in a "notable film". Proving the film notable may be easier than proving her role to be significant because Wikipedia really doesn't have any criteria or guidelines to elaborate on what "significant" really means. For the most part, I would say that, if the film is proven to be notable, a role can be judged to be significant if the actor is (a) credited for this role and (b) not credited as an extra. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again; the logic about how a role can be judged to be significant is exactly what I was looking for. Now I wish there were a whole bunch of AfDs about actors that I could analyze! LOL Again, I recommend that this article is a Keeper for the closing admin. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actress had roles in multiple notable films in the 1940's. ~~Just because the nominator does not remember her~~ does not lessen her contributions as an actress 60 years ago. These types of articles add value to Wikipedia and should be kept. Esasus (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate the article because I didn't remember her; in fact, I stated on the talk page of the article, and above, that I did specifically remember her. The reason I nominated the article is because you removed the PROD tag without adding any citations beyond your assertion that she was notable, apparently having missed the discussion on the talk page of the article where the process was being discussed. But thanks for your contribution, which prompted me to have this settled once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud to have been the catalyst of this discussion (by removing the PROD). It has proved to be very informative.Esasus (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per good reasoning from Big Bird Camw (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another way to check the significance of a role is to see how high in the credit list it is. There's a lot of funny business going on there, but generally speaking the more important characters are further up the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been giving this some thought, and I'd suggest that in films before, say, 1950 it was common for an actor of colour to be listed at the bottom of the list, regardless of how important his/her role was to the film. Similarly, I have noticed a recent trend of giving acting credits at the end of a film based on when the person was seen in the film, chronologically. I understand from an actor friend that it can be based on the number of lines the person has in the film, excepting specific contractual arrangements that are made for the two or three principal actors. But then, that would leave out actors like Rondo Hatton who rarely spoke in a film. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is turning into a model of how an AfD should progress and I commend all involved. I have a question before I amend my opinion above to "Keep". We seem to have demonstrated that she appeared in several notable films, but I'm still slightly in the dark about how significant any of her roles in them were. I'm dissatisfied currently with the one in The Big Sleep. We would exclude someone who, for the sake of argument (sorry for the strawman here) was an Extra in 5 notable films, unless of course he achieved significant media coverage for the feat! All of which boils down to the question: how significant were her roles in Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained a bit earlier, it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgement call. Does that help at all? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but not really. As I said above, I'd retain a Delete for someone who appeared as an Extra in 2 or even 5 notable films. I'm totally happy to accept that the two films are notable. If the policy is grey, we can interpret it reasonably. For example, do we have any information about the nature of her roles in them? A suggestion: in reviews or synopses of the films in RS, are the roles mentioned? --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. Before I muddle the water any further, let me just make sure that I got it right this time: you're asking how to make sure that, for example, "Mildred" (the subject's character in Federal Agent at Large) in not an extra? Am I correct? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also not what we might call a glorified extra. A substantial role. The kind that would get your name on the poster they'd stick on boards on the tube. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think requiring the role to be as substantial as what you explained above is a bit too strict (mind you, I realize that the interpretation will vary greatly based on where you stand in the inclusionist vs. deletionist spectrum); I'm apt to interpret the significance of a role somewhat more liberally. Take Jaye Davidson for example. Other than his Oscar nominated role in The Crying Game, his IMDb profile has only two more entries: one of them is a 60 minute TV film which does not qualify under WP:Notability (films) and the other is a short appearance as Ra in Stargate. Although he was nominated for an Oscar, award nominations are not a criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. Couple that with a somewhat strict interpretation of how significant his only other role in a notable film might have been and we might not have an article on this actor. Again, this is just a personal interpretation of a vaguely worded guideline and, given that it is vague, interpretations will be different from one person to the next but this is how I interpret a significance of a role. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (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.