Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Deese


 * 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. I'm discounting the first and last "keep" !votes, as they give no policy-based rationales for keeping the article. The sources added by Rich Farmbrough (presumably—I don't have access to them) establish that she did indeed appear in two of the roles listed in her filmography, but no one has adduced evidence that any of her roles have been "significant". The consensus is that the subject fails WP:NACTOR. Deor (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mary Deese

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also is a WP:BLP that is completely unsourced, and I can't find anything even remotely resembling a reliable source. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪   ♀ Contribs ♀  09:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP with no source. A quick search revealed nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  11:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles like that need deeper research, like typing "Mary Deese" and the "name of the movie" to see if she got a review. Just searching Mary Deese" actress brings dozens of returns and it's a matter of those who know which sites in entertainment are and are not WP:RS. It's a stub. Eight of twelve movies she's been in have articles. Let's be inclusionist and not have to rewrite the article should she suddenly become the start of some top hollywood comedy or whatever. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia is not a crystal ball. When it happens, the article may be undeleted. We've done something like this already. But 1 in 1000 deleted, I guess. Also I tried something deeper, but no luck. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Dallas is a big show. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and lots of stagefilling actors, too. Notability not inherited. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

S
 * delete. No major roles, no scandals, no publicity. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment couple of RS found. So arguments about unsourced BLP fail. Notability is still a problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete I see no evidence that any of her roles are "significant", and so far, no reliable sources have been found that discuss her life and career at any length. Of course, the article can be recreated if her career takes off. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:33, 2 August 2014 (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.