Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethelmary Oakland

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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelmary Oakland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oakland appeared in a few films when she was 7 and 8. I am less than convinced any of her roles were actually significant. One is listed second in the cast list, but only because it is the main role as a child. We have only IMDB as a source, which is not reliable. A search for sources produced nothign that was coverage passing GNG. Oakland lived over 80 years after she last appeared in a film and we seem to know absolutely nothing about that part of her life. She does not seem to in any way have been a public figure, and I see no benefit to having basically a short blurd grouping together her very few film roles. There are very rare people who did things at age 7 and 8 that make them notable, but Oakland does not seem to have been such a person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make assumptions about why she's second listed in the cast. And playing the main character as a child is a fine reason to be second listed. What a bogus thing to mention in an AfD nomination. It's totally normal for a child actor to transition to anonymity and not get press after. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can dig up sources from old newspapers, I'm not finding anything in GNews, two articles saying she's a child actress appearing in xyz film, basically a list of what was as the theater that week. The LOC newspaper archive only has 30 hits on her name, nothing substantial, mostly just her name in a list of films at the theater. NYT search, nothing, Wikipedia Library has nothing, JSTOR has a 1921 magazine article that just lists her name as the newspapers do, in a list of films and actors in them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and Indiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found multiple articles at newspapers.com and have added them to the page. The most notable clips are these: [1][2][3] Her training in dance is discussed here. [4] She was also painted by Emil Fuchs (artist) and trained in dance with Anna Pavlova, both items added to the page (with the appropriate citations). DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per meeting GNG. Good HEY work. The nomination rationale is out of line and all of the above means that this should be a speedy keep and close, though I don't foresee that happening. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- How can one possible speedy keep an article for which the discussion has already been extended beyond the normal time. The notion that we should not have articles sourced only to IMDb on children who never did anything as adults is not "out of line". It is a reasonable agument, and with the other sources found in the google search having been Wikipedia mirrors and a BFI listing that had her name and the name of one 1917 film and that was it, it was not an unresonable conclusion for the easily available sourcing. What is out of line is how many Wikipedia articles lack even one source that is reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Double standards are not reasonable and have no place in an AfD argument. We don't treat a child actor differently than an adult actor on this website. Her age has nothing to do with anything. Ageism has no place in Wikipedia and is inappropriate for AfD. It's an entirely different issue from sourcing. Weakens your argument to include it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article has existed since 2006. I at least do not think Wikipedia should have articles exist for 16 years without any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw people were able to find additional sources that now show notability. This was not easily evident when found and the article had existed for an excessive amount of time with no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request made for someone authorized to close this "withdraw" request to delete this article. --Ooligan (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.