Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McKay


 * 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. John254 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Doreen McKay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I really do not feel that notability has been established for Doreen McKay, nor could it be. She was in 5 films (2 of which were uncredited) and then she disappeared. There is little, if any, substantial, individual coverage from reliable, third-party sources that I could find (I searched Google, the University of Texas library catalog and Jstor). When I tagged it with notability, the author added a broken link and I couldn't figure out where it was supposed to lead, unless it was this, which does not really add anything from IMDB. I attempted to contact the author about notability and was ignored. Therefore, I feel an AfD is an appropriate venue. The relevant WP:BIO entertainer guidelines are:


 * 1) Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
 * 2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * 3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

There is no evidence that she meets any of these requirements nor the more general WP:BIO ones. Cheers, CP 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I can't find much information about her -- not that surprising, given that her film career seems to have ended before computers were invented, much less the Internet. On the other hand, she did play the female lead in a couple of lesser John Wayne movies. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Using Access Newspaper Archive, I came across a Fresno Bee article from 1936 that includes a picture of someone named Doreen McKay, with the following caption: "Lovely to look at, and more delightful to know, is shapely Doreen McKay, who hails from San Francisco. She's typical of the new, intelligent beauties who have just arrived on Broadway." ("A Broadway Miracle". Fresno Bee. May 3, 1936. page 40.) I don't even know if that's the same person, and it certainly isn't enough to establish notability, but maybe it could provide a jumping-off point for further research. Zagalejo^^^ 05:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep On the basis that she starred opposite John Wayne. She must have been notable in her day to have been in these films.  No doubt there are dozens of modern-day actress with articles on here that only appeared in one or two films, but have more coverage due to a wider news service (IE news websites). Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Those films she starred in are valid enough especially opposite Wayne and she wasn't a one off actress although her roles were very few. It is concerning though that there isn't much info to expand it, and if it could ever be expanded beyond a stub, but that is the case with many of the earlier films and actors; that doesn't mean they aren't of notability . You might want to fix the dead TCM link though ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to fix the dead TCM link though - Done. Lugnuts (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If she appeared in five movies, she is notable enough IMO.--Berig (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, two starring roles opposite Wayne, which sandwiched his career-making performance in Stagecoach, probably mean there are sources that are presently offline. Per WP:CSB/WP:RECENTISM I don't think relying on Google (even the ever-expanding Google Books) tells us the totality of what is available for someone who was a reasonably successful actress almost seven decades ago. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how many people have actually read my argument, but you've clearly ignored it if you're accusing me of recentism. Jstor's journal archive goes back to the 1800s at least, so if there was anything scholarly written on her, it would be covered. Similarly, I browsed the Library of Texas catalog, which covers a vast collection of both scholarly and unscholarly works, so if there was a book that offered non-trivial coverage of her, it would have shown up. So I ask that you be more careful next time you levy an accusation such as that I am "relying on Google," which is clearly and demonstrably false.
 * As for the other arguments, I have yet to see something that objectively appeals to the criteria for notability or the need for third-party, independent reliable sources to be present to demonstrate notability. I see a lot of speculation and subjective opinion ("there may be sources," "she's probably famous," "I think this many is enough"), but no one has given me concrete sources or a connection to the notability criteria. If they did, I would withdraw this nomination immediately. The onus is on the person who adds the material to provide sourcing for notability, not on someone who thinks that she's not notable to browse through every document known to man before they conclude that nothing substantial has been written on her. And any any case, despite the accusation, I think I've put in a very good faith effort to locate sources. Cheers, CP 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My comments were not aimed at any editor in particular. They were not accusations, but spoke to general tendencies on Wikipedia. As to the second point, I believe the available sources verify that she meets BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote the original requirement: or been featured multiple times in notable films - has been featured in 5 films (5 is multiple), 3 of them are notable enough to have articles, 2 of them starred John Wayne, and in one of those she was the leading lady. Lugnuts (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The presence of an article on Wikipedia is not enough to determine its notability, since many articles pop up on Wikipedia and are later determined to be non-notable. Similarly, the absence of an article does not imply non-notability, as it may be the case that no one has gone around to writing. Any argument for notability based on whether or not the subject has a Wiki article is invalid. None of those articles are more than stubs, which does not obviously indicate that they are notable films. Also, Notability is not inherited, so the fact that John Wayne was in two of them does not mean that those films were notable in themselves. That she was the leading lady in one is a (indeed the first) relatively more objective claim to notability based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But "one" is not multiple, nor is there any indication that the film she starred in is notable. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW, not finding something in JSTOR is meaningless as a negative criterion. JSTOR covers about 1000 humanities journals, many of them for only a few years. There are probably well over 20,000, based on the usual estimate of 50,000 current journals. DGG (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that not finding anything in JSTOR is "meaningless". It should neither make or break an argument such as this, but it can provide a useful indicator in the context of the fact that I searched other sources and that I've performed "more than a Google search." An article or two on JSTOR would, if not prove, at least indicate that she meets criteria #2 or #3 for entertainers. The fact that there is not is another piece of evidence that she may not meet that criteria (although by itself it is admittedly meaningless). People write academically on a wide variety of topics - JSTOR would even pick her up if she were used as a cultural reference in a paper. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The writing on the wall is clear, but this is the first time in an AfD of mine where I have not been remotely convinced that my nomination was in error. If sources are not added within the next few months, I will renominate for deletion, hopefully with a stronger argument since the onus of providing sources is on the person who adds the material. I have yet to see any argument that is not based in something subjective or speculative. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I think part of the point was that the absence of information on JSTOR (while a valuable reference tool) does not connote the absence of any information of note. More generally, it is difficult to prove a negative and partial proofs are unconvincing.Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I would contend that it is not for you to decide whether the writing on the wall is clear or not and I would further contend that your conviction about your own request is hardly proof of anything. I don't mean that as personal attacks.  I simply mean that the discussion appears open to me.Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my saying that "the writing is on the wall" implied that I know that I don't think that this will be deleted this round, since everyone seems to disagree with me. Cheers, CP 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure thing. sorry about misinterpreting that then. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * weak keep Include the reference listed above, fix the TCM link and keep it. The 'notability is not inherited' argument is a particularly weak one in my mind, given that a good portion of historical notability is relational.  We know who Anne Boleyn is primarily through her connection to Henry VIII.  We write about the men who hoisted the flag at Iwo Jima because of the press about the flag hoisting (I'm not suggesting that they or the story are not individually notable).Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (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.