Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Young


 * 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)  J 947 ( c ) (m)   18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Evelyn Young

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete being a minor cast member does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And the US has 50 states. Equally true and also no relationship to the article ;-) gidonb (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - she had leading roles in at least two films: The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners. In addition, she had another notable role in Girls of the Road. As such, she barely passes WP:NACTOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable actress per WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". The article needs more info and more referencing. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment further to my comment above, I have improved the referencing. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners are not notable films by any stretch of the imagination, and the rest of her credits go downhill from there. Furthermore, passing mentions do not satisfy WP:RS. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentions are not passing but lengthy and detailed. Both the movies The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners are notable. There are many more references to the actress from the 1940s. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Leading roles in at least two films: The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners. Good sourcing: American Film Institute and several Google books.desmay (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD is open already a while but all this while no case has been made for deletion. As is clear from the improved article, the actress meets both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. If one were to claim that the films in which Young has lead roles are non-notable, these could be listed for deletion, however these films meet WP:NFILM. My claim is not that other stuff exists. I reject such arguments. Rather I'm pointing out that there are obvious dependencies here. It's like the category that is listed for rename but the name change should be discussed at the critical article for that category. Same with a lead actress of multiple feature films at the "Big Six". Only if the movies are nevertheless proven non-notable it would even be conceivable that their lead actors are non-notable. And even then Young meets the WP:GNG. But without addressing the films no case for deletion would be possible. Sure, it is said in the intro that the actress is not notable by the relevant professional guideline. It is the how not notable by that guideline that defies logic without procedurally addressing the films. After all, WP:NACTOR is crystal clear: actors are notable (amongst others) if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". gidonb (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be totally clear I'm adding only as a side note (!) that Young had significant roles also in the notable films Boobs in Arms and Girls of the Road. One of these is mentioned above. I'm concentrating however on her roles in The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners because the female lead is so obviously a significant role. I'm trying to keep my argument simple. gidonb (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NACTOR, with two lead roles, plus plenty of supporting ones. Meets WP:GNG too. And she's been dead nearly 40 years. Why are we wasting time on this AfD? Edwardx (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (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.