Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trudi Ames

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. Michig (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trudi Ames

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

Only very minor roles, not seeing how this can meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created the article so I suppose I should chime in. Wikipedia's notability standards say multiple significant roles in notable films. I suppose this largely turns on how you parse and define the words significant and notable. Bye Bye Birdie is certainly notable, I don't think anyone would dispute that. Gidget Goes To Rome is perhaps not notable on it's own, but the Gidget series/franchise is certainly notable and this movie is part of that franchise. As to whether the roles were significant, that is a little more subjective. She was uncredited in that film, but she gave a memorable enough performance to receive a promising newcomer award (there was a source attached to that statement but it has since been deleted, I do not know why. I think most people who have seen the film will remember her role, and in the stage version, it was credited supporting role (see wikipedia's page about the stage version). I cannot claim to have seen Gidget Goes to Rome, but I did see the trailer. It is billed as a friends "beach party" type movie, and she plays one of the main character's two best friends. She is shown in the trailer and her character is reference by name in the trailer. So there you have it, two arguably significant roles in two films whose notability is probably not in question. When I started the article, I took multiple to mean more than one. I took significant to mean memorable, not necessarily a starring or leading role. If people disagree with the notability of the films or the roles, or feel two is not enough, then of course, delete the article. I had hoped when I started the article that others would help it grow, but I must admit, it is still a stub after 7 years and doesn't look a whole lot different than it did a few years ago. Schnapps17 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for an actress hinges less on how you parse the meaning of the word "significant", and more on how you reference the significance of the roles — the test is not the having of roles in and of itself, but the depth of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be shown to get her over WP:GNG for the having of roles. (For instance, a person can get over the bar for a minor supporting role, if it got them an Oscar nomination or made them verifiably and sourceably famous — and a person can be the main star of a film and not get over the bar if the film sucked and nobody went to see it.) But the only references here at all are a glancing namecheck of her existence in an obituary of her father, and her own self-written contributor profiles in the back matter of two books she contributed writing to. Which means none of them support her notability at all, because the one that's independent of her isn't about her and the ones that are about her aren't independent of her, and no role, "significant" or not, is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an actress from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Taking the article creators position that her roles in "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Gidget" were memorable. Two widely seen notable films might do the trick, but it's simply unfortunate for this actress to have worked in an era where movie credits were not very deep (before SAG reached an agreement with MPPA to require onscreen credits for all speaking roles). Were she in films today doing comparable work she would have received screen credit and could pass. But that's not the case and absent significant reliable source recognition, as Bearcat emphasizes, she simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's threshold. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've found some coverage of her and she also had a role in some TV sitcoms. See the sources in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources added by Megalibrarygirl. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guidelines for an actor. Kudos to Megalibrarygirl for inproving the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These articles on actors from the pre-internet age are sometimes a challenge to get all the info needed, but here, we have a person with multiple roles in significant productions. Bye, Bye Birdie was huge in its time. And indeed, if films then used today's standards, this individual would have had the acknowledgement needed to meet the standards used for 21st-century performers. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is better now with inclusion of more material. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two additional sources from newspapers in the 1960s. Based on the current sourcing, the article passes WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite well referenced, passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:25, 5 March 2018 (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.