Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorinda Stevens


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Dorinda Stevens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep under WP:NACTOR. Appeared in at least three "notable" films (Jack the Ripper, Horrors of the Black Museum, and Night Train to Paris) which were reviewed in the New York Times and and/or San Francisco Examiner, all of which mentioned her by name with photos. I have improved the citations for the article accordingly. I expect to find more in the British Newspaper Archive when I can visit my local library to get around the paywall. --Muzilon (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Appearing in notable (and that's debatable too) films is not enough. Per NACTOR, you have to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". 13th billing in Jack the Ripper and no mention at all in the New York Times review, 12th billing in Horrors of the Black Museum, and, while she does have 3rd billing (and a couple of lines in the review) in Night Train to Paris, that hardly qualifies as a notable film. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I merely named those three films as probably her best-known work in the USA – she was better known in the UK. Night Train may not be a "great" film, but as it was reviewed in the NYT and Film Daily and has its own WP article it would appear to qualify as a "notable" one (unless you also intend to challenge its inclusion in WP under WP:NFILM). See also her co-starring roles in Hair of the Dog and The Gentle Trap. --Muzilon (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable in the NACTOR sense is not, AFAIK, the same as notable in the weaker Wikipedia sense (i.e. justifying an article). If that were the case, we'd be inundated with articles for journeyperson actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ehh, Wikipedia is full of biographies for C-list actors most of us have never heard of, but I guess that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sticking with my original vote for a weak keep.--Muzilon (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Appears to have been the subject of WP:SIGCOV. I believe The Stage is an RS, and you can see her obit there, which combined with the other sources means she meets WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - genuinely nonplussed by this nomination. The subject appears to me as the article's creator to have had a notable career and this is a valid article here. Jack1956 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that we're seeing too many one-sentence deletion proposals for articles that clearly require more reasoning than that. I can still buy a deletion proposal for an article even if it has lots of references so long as its well argued. If the proposer doesn't take the time to explain why it should be deleted unless it's an open-and-shut case they really are just wasting people's time. FOARP (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - as noted above there does seem to be notable coverage of her work in films which are considered notable, and I would tend to agree with the point that the proposer could do with making a clearer argument as to why they think the article should be deleted. Dunarc (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability clearly established. Article fully sourced and referenced. Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, refs look fine, probably qualifies as snow. Szzuk (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2018 (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.