Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Kent


 * 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   speedy keep. Courcelles 13:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mary Kent

 * Nomination withdrawn Sources are severely lacking but I think it has to do more with the period and topic which often have little coverage. I can try to find some scraps of info about her, I guess at least what info is present is encyclopedic but badly needs sources.


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced, can find very few hits to prove notability or verify it. Google books picks up a New York related bio but not an english actress, couldn't find any mention of a Mary Kent in the Oxford National Biography, otherwise I'd have tried to expand it.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't there supposed to be an AfD template on the article? Anyway, I've added the source that the facts in it come from: Highfill, Philip Jr, Burnim, Kalman A., and Langhans, Edward (1973–93). "Mary Kent", in Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800. 16 volumes. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Such things tended to go missing in 2005, when I created the article. Not sure why AfD'ing it was better than simply dropping a note on my page asking me to supply the reference. Because using templates is always better? Bishonen | talk 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

Something told me that given your treatment of myself you wouldn't take too kindly to me turning up at your talk page. That is indeed a good source and we could certianly do with better coverage of early actors. But they also require sources, google web or book search Mary Kent and there's nothing solid if at all I can find. Articles need more than one source..♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My treatment? Right. You think turning up as the signatory of a somewhat threatening template is more endearing than posting humanspeak on my page? Anyway, "Articles need more than one source"? Short articles like this? What's that, a rule? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 12 April 2011 (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.