Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwood Kaye


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Darwood Kaye

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This actor doesn't seem notable. He doesn't seem to have had any major roles in anything or won any awards for his acting. In fact, apparently he just had a minor recurring role in a single TV show. Also, the article only cites a single source and all I could find about him when I liked was name drops in lists of credits for the show and a few brief mentions in things that weren't about him. Plus, a couple of articles about his death. None of which pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Kaye appeared in the popular Our Gang shorts in the late 1930s. There are two pages about him in the 1986 edition of Whatever Become Of...? (Crown Publishers). There is also coverage in Leonard Maltin's book The Little Rascals: The Life and Times of Our Gang (Crown Publishers, 1992). Examples of Kaye's press coverage include "'Our Gang' Arrives Here for Appearance at Palace" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1940) and "Hit-Run Kills 'Our Gang' Child Actor" (Los Angeles Times, 2002). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep He is mentioned in several OUR GANG books, with more than a passing mention. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which ones? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones mentioned by Toughpigs,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Innovative International Multi-purpose Vehicle"? Anyway, I figured those were the ones Donaldd23 was talking about. I just wondering how he/she know the books contained more then passing mentions when only one of them is accessible. All ToughPigs said about them was that they contained "coverage." Which could really mean anything. Especially since one of his examples of "coverage" is an obituary and we all know how useful those are for determining notability (hint: not that much). --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A book as common/popular as the Maltin one is accessible on the bookshelves of many a classic film fan. There was a time before the WWW when we would go to bookstores and buy these things in order to be informed. $5 says Toughpigs has it on the shelf. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as has reliable book coverage as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's sourced well and "Waldo" meets notability requirements. Most of the Our Gang members will as so many books, articles, documentaries, etc. are still happening, even 90+ years on. The "obituary" I saw was a biographical piece about a notable person, not a paid thing listing dates, survivors, charities, etc. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked an obituary is just a news article about someone's death and it doesn't have to be a "paid thing" that lists charities to qualify as one. The problem for me is, that obituaries (and the article is one) are extremely common for actors. Even low level non-notable ones. So I don't think it helps for notability. Especially since it was printing by the Los Angeles Times and he lived in the Los Angeles area. Maybe if it was a national news outlet or something similar, but at that point it might as well be a short piece on Access Hollywood. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point that some obituaries, such as this one, cover notable lives and their moments. Moments that, in this case, reached some of the people commenting here, and yours truly many years ago. The notability is that he started in over two dozen films in a highly regarded and still popular series. An article in the Los Angeles Times, which yes covers a lot of film-related stuff, about the life and death of a former child film actor who played in classic movies may be a problem for you, but so far it's only for you. It's all very well for you to nominate many 7th day adventist topics, but you'll have better results if you are choosier. This one was a poor nom and it'll stay in the encyclopedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of those articles have absolutely nothing to do with 7th-Adventism. Anyway, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." So, maybe get the hell off my craw about it and WP:AGF. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kaye's obituary appeared in papers nationwide; the article already has a reference to the obit in The Des Moines Register. But honestly, you can criticize every possible reference that you want, because I have this: two pages about Kaye in the 1986 edition of Whatever Became Of...? Click on that link, and then tell me that Darwood Kaye is not notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that word means what you think it means. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was in relation to your comment that me discussing why a source is an obituary was somehow me criticize it. Which totally wasn't assuming good faith about why I was discussing it. Since it had nothing to do with being "critical" about anything. If you were assuming good faith you would not have read negative intent into it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:AGF to Toughpigs here is practically inconceivable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe its practically inconceivable because your perspective on this whole thing is to overly miopic and focused on your "inclusionist comrades" being the virtuous, persecuted ones in everything. ARS people at least seem like a cult and that's how cults act when the behavior of one if their own is questioned. "Oh golly me, ToughPigs doing something wrong? Why I do declare, that's inconceivable!!" All you people need is a fainting couch. Anyway, id appreciate it if you either stuck to commenting about the AfD or stayed out of it. At this point all the bloviating and personal attacks everywhere is becoming disruptive. So it should really end. Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.