Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabel Richardson (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mabel Richardson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see two claims to notability. The first one is that Richardson was a Hollywood actress. However, she has played only very minor roles, so she fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. The second claim is that she is a supercentenarian and longest-lived film actor, but the significance of this is not covered by "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (WP:BASIC) The Press-Telegram articles, which are the sources for many statements in this WP article, do not appear to meet this standard. Edge3 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete IMDB lists 2 roles: uncredited, unnamed "Israelite Woman", and another uncredited role IMDB doesn't even give a name to. If this had been in 2005 instead of the silent era, the article likely would have been speedy deleted without a thought.  Notability isn't temporary, and the other side of that coin is that non-notable actions do not somehow grow notability over time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources support the claim that she was the longest-lived actress. I've removed the utterly unreliable, anonymously written IMDb trivia "reference", which doesn't even make an out-and-out claim, only that she was "believed to be the oldest actor ever in Hollywood" (bolding mine). The alleged distinction fails to even include the whole world. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not certain if I'm supposed to leave a comment here, since I initiated the first AfD and the DRV, but my rationale for deletion remains the same as when I nominated this article in the first place (except, of course, the reference numbers have changed since some have been deleted). Canadian   Paul  03:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I posted a recommendation (with reasoned points) on 18 April. It's more than a little annoying to find my recommendation has since been hived-off (suspiciously like buried) into a hard-to-find separate page - it took me nearly 7 minutes to find it at Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17, and there one has to "unhide" the section to access it and also read the other initial comments upon the relisting for deletion. This new page only shows "delete" responses as if that's all anyone's ever recommended. It creates a false impression by not showing all comments received since 17 April. Unintentional I'm sure, but nevertheless that's the result. Moving on now, is this the second or the third relisting? All initial comments on 18-19 April were to keep or to overturn as no consensus, after which yet it was decided to "Relist with a semi-protected AfD" (making it a third relist? whether intended or not!) so as to have a sockpuppet-free discussion? I don't see how semi-protecting (potentially limiting the responses) aids discussion, but I'll let that pass. Moving on further, I agree the discussion should concentrate only on the subject (not the article), so let's only discuss that. I came across the article from an unbiased/neutral position after the first "keep" decision, and after reading through all the subject cite-refs (including ones deleted in early April) I felt the case for keeping it was well decided. Allow me to restate my 18 April reasons for keep: The subject is worthy of remark a) for her longevity (undisputed - the only difficulty is the lack of a printed source other than Press-Telegram), b) for her having known and worked with some major film stars, although she herself did not achieve fame, and c) for being the wife of John J. Richardson, who apparently accompanied Chaplin (!!) to the USA on his first visit. More may emerge about this in time (the article only makes the barest mention), and therefore both this article and a possible future one about her husband could well become important "stubs" for those researching the silent film era. And if another retired actress should approach 110 in the next year or two, many will turn to Wikipedia to check and compare info on the current "record holder" (sic). Logic says keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Hobbs (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She's old, but not so old that that in itself is a claim to encyclopedic notability. People also do not inherit notability by being friends, co-workers, or otherwise associating with notable people.  See WP:NOTINHERITED for details. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. I don't have access to the full Press-Telegram articles. What I can see doesn't mention the claim at all. Does it say anywhere in them that she was the oldest? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Therefore also fails WP:NOTABILITY (as being a supercentenarian is, as has been repeatedly shown in Afds, insufficient and falls under WP:1E). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:28, 1 May 2013 (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.