Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy West (actress)


 * 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) Sulfurboy (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Dorothy West (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article only has iMDb as a source, which is not reliable. In my search for more information on her I can across a lot more unreliable stuff, and lots of false posities. One example was a celebrity life non-source that included a photo of the writer of the same name with her death information. I found a British Film Institute article (somewhat sourced to IMDB itself) that included a 1931 photo of a Dorothy West connected with a film by a female director and described as playing herself. It was just a caption description though, and nothing clearly connected that person with the silent film actress who had not performed at that point in over 15 years. West lived to be 79 but we only have any information anywhere I could find on her during 8 years of her life. She lived 64 years after her last apparance in a film. The only real source I could find was a film industry trade publication from 1916 with a plot synopsis for one of her films that mentioned her as having the role in the film. Nothing I came up with would count as the substantive, 3rd party secondary sources indepdent of the subject we need to pass GNG. While she was the lead actress in a few films, considering these films were often 15 minutes I do not think we can adequately apply a rule developed in an age of 1 hour plus long films and TV shows to show that the few films she stared in are enough. If you look through he listed filmography she often shows up at the bottom of the cast list with bit parts. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "While she was the lead actress in a few films, considering these films were often 15 minutes I do not think we can adequately apply a rule developed in an age of 1 hour plus long films and TV shows to show that the few films she stared in are enough." What????? Are you suggesting we hold an article to a different standard because the woman worked 100 years ago in the first years of film? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that we consider the meaning behind the standards we have. Significant roles in 3 films when they average one and a half hours or more means a lot more than in 3 films when they are much shorter. All the more so if the film articles themselves are only sourced to IMDb. Beyond this, the underlying problem that this article presented when I found it was being sourced only to IMDb. IMDb is not reliable, and we should not have articles sourced only to it. Considering we pretty much write off all 1-episode TV appearances as not significant, I do think we need a bit more skepticism about some film appearances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We have no separate (double) standard for silent films, do we? Consider that some of the films she was in are preserved by the Library of Congress and were reviewed by the press. They have as much clout as the longer, more modern films to which you refer. It's ok that you are not a silent film enthusiast -- I wouldn't say I am -- but equating a D.W. Griffith film with an episode of a television show doesn't work. If you want to pursue your idea that short silent films are less worthy and get notability policy changed, this isn't the place to do it. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, a bit of WP:BEFORE work here finds this, this and, along with multiple mentions in the Biographical Dictionary of Silent Film Western Actors and Actresses.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the most insulting comment I have seen. I did a lot of background search as documented above. The fact that there are other more notable people with this name made this difficult. A search for "Dorothy West" and actress showed up a lot of mentions of people appearing in films based on novels by the writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Try "Dorothy West" and "silent film" instead. And to be fair, a lot of your prod/deletion work in this area does appear to lack any WP:BEFORE work, such these recent examples: one, two.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I mentioned that first source Lugnuts gave in his links. I am unconvinced that the caption is of a picture of this Dorothy West. Is that woman 48? That is how old this Doroty West was in 1931. Also it is just a caption, not really even a passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Alie and Well and Living on Martha's Vinyard'' source shows that I am the one who did the before, not Lugnuts. That is not about this Dorothy West. How do I know. 1-This Dorothy West died in 1980. 2-That is most explicitly about the African-American writer, not the Euro-American actress. So of those first three sources we have only one that is for sure about this actress (there is no evidence that the 1931 photo is of this person) and even then it is focused on the director way more than the actress. It is most about one film, maybe it would count towards GNG, but we cannot pass GNG on that source alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The biographical dictionary link does not work for me, so I cannot say if it is workable. However the fact that Lugnuts provides as a source an article about a totally different person shows that he did not in fact examine any of the sources he threw out in any detail. One passing analysis of a silent film someone starred in is not enough to create notability, and that is all we really have, because we have no evidence connecting the 1931 photo to this actress, this is not an uncommon name, and a caption to a photo is not the type of indepth article needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm on it. According to her LoC authority file, she's mentioned (briefly or extensively I do not know) in this book ... --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm going to work on the article. I have a lot of hits in Newspapers.com and other places to look as well. I see the discussion has been going on for a few days and it looks like it would be extended for at least another week. Please do extend if a "no consensus" or "keep" is not reached. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping with this. Maybe Lambert would like to explain his canvassing with this post, and the one about Dorthy West directly above it?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The communication there about Dorothy West was done before any nomination, so it is in no way canvassing. The post there linked to is something I have not nominated. It is perfectly acceptable to communicate with others about issues concerning articles. On the other hand I am still waiting for Lugnuts to admitted one of those articles he linked to is about a different Dorothy West and so has no bearing on this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the post about West I had still not decided to nominate the article. If Lugnuts had any respectability he would strike the reference to the false 1988 article link and admit that only one of the offered sources at the time he could link to this person.12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The post I linked to, albeit titled "Fay Lemport" was made by you five days after this AfD started. So if Lambert had any respectability, you would strike out your comment where you tell a straight out lie.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I am working on the HEY factor. Stay tuned. In the meantime, please, let's all chill out (myself included). Early 1900s entertainment BEFORE work is not straightforward. take a look at the article now and tell us what you think. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Only when Lugnuts admits he was totally and completely wrong in claiming the 1988 article in any way, sahpe, means or form related to this actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you won't chill until then or that you won't look at the article until then? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I might do both. I am just frustrated that I went through the long process of evaluating the actual sources, pointed out there was a writer who should not be confused with the actress, and then had a source related to the writer thrown at me in a very rude way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment She is probably the same as this Dorothy West, as an article talked about her in motion pictures said she was a Broadway actress, but I am not quite at 100% on it, so I am not going to add it at this time. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets WP:GNG now because WP:HEY. I found reliable secondary sources, including one article that is just about her, and reviews of a couple of the films she was in that comment on her performance. I'm going to try to get other sources, including an obituary, but things like that may not be available due to stay at home orders. I have also read that she was a radio actress in the early 1930s and may look more into that in due time as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think the subject passes the notability guidelines quite comfortably. There has been some very good work done on the page by the above editors, so WP:HEY is relevant here. (Also, I don't think it matters that many of the films the subject appeared in were short films, given the time period.) Dflaw4 (talk) 10:52, 23 April 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.