Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian McGuire


 * 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 No evidence of notability presented for individual as an actress so comes down to WP:1E one event and no real sources to indicate notability presented for this event. Consensus view appears to be delete. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Marian McGuire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It's old news, but it's still just news. Subject does not appear to have any notability beyond having filed this lawsuit.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is notable for only one event. Create an article about the event instead. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to the name of the court case or Marian McGuire privacy case Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep At issue here is not whether McGuire is noted for a single event. Instead, it is the deceptiveness of the manner her photos were used. She posed for artistic reasons and yet her photos were exploited for commercial purposes . The article has legal ramifications which are pertinent today, for artist models and anyone who is victimized by agencies, etc., which use their images without discretion. The article may be renamed but its pertinence is evident.--Robert (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: If the incident had legal ramifications then it would obviously be notable, but in the absence of sources supporting this, it remains only your interpretation. The article doesn't even support that it went to trial, let alone influenced anyone. The act of a model suing a company by itself is non-notable and perusing the G-news items doesn't reveal any mention of this beyond the year it happened. If the incident was notable/influential, surely it would be mentioned beyond 1939 (in fact, it happened in April of that year, but the latest mention of it appears to be only the 1st of that May), but that does not appear to be the case from what I found.  Mbinebri   talk &larr; 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find nothing, from various searches, on free, public databases, about this lawsuit. Does anyone have a WestLaw, Lexis or Pacific reports citation? Bearian (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I looked up Marian McGuire on IMDb, hoping to find evidence that she was notable as a film actor. There are listings here for some female actors with similar names who were active in the early 1940s, but no exact match. I can't tell whether this is the same person as any of the IMDB hits. A Google search for "Marian McGuire" site:variety.com doesn't turn anything up. It is possible that she brought the lawsuit under her birth name and any records of her film performances use a different stage name.In short, I can't find evidence that this person was notable as an actor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: No this is not the same Marian McGuire as in the

the IMDB listing. She was likely a model/actress

Of little importance. It's the issue which is pertinent.

No the fact that it was not reported over

And over does not diminish it's significance.

McGuire may have settled out of court without

News reportage. The issue is still important

To legal students and to gender discrimination

As well as photographic rights. If you persist

In discrediting it's merit, it's your right.

Yet it is valid and multifaceted in its impact.

It is a diamond in the rust so to speak. -- Robertg9


 * Delete - There is no indication that the lawsuit was some sort of legal landmark, but I'm not a lawyer. Otherwise, this is just a news story. - Whpq (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, standard case of WP:ONEEVENT. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2010 (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.