Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Stanley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Stanley

Louise Stanley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

She was the wife of two notable actors, but, as stated in the article, she failed to achieve any notability of her own. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, she accomplished little to nothing on her own. However, would Monica Lewinski be famous at all had she not slept with Bill Clinton? No, Louise Stanley on her own is not known at all, short of a few excerpts here and there. But, she was an actress, and she was married to two fairly famous actors. That's more than Monica has done. In my opinion, do not delete.

  • Keep. I think that the article establishes sufficient notability. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - ditto. Deb (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable by association. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited. More sources needed to establish her own notability. Epbr123 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A lack of sources in the article is not a reason to delete. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It depends whether any such sources exist. As none have been found yet, it is more likely they don't. Epbr123 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My comment and that of another editor appear to have been accidently deleted. I tried to roll back to that version, with the thought of then cutting and pasting the subsequent comments back in place. I haven't been able to get that to work, so I am just pasting our missing comments here below. Xymmax
  • Keep. Minor notability, but still notable. Xymmax (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. She may have had several notable husbands, but that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article itself admits that she is a "little known actress" with only "minor roles" that "never lifted her to stardom". What more do you need? A sign that says "DELETE ME!"? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Little known" is not the same as "not notable". All that can be claimed is that the article has not sufficiently established the subject's notability. I think that it has, but of course your mileage may vary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Out of curiosity, I ran her name through the Chicago Tribune's electronic archives, which I can access through my university library. I don't think she was quite as obscure as the present article may suggest. Here are a few sources that could be incorporated into the article:
  • George Shaffer. "Chicago radio actress wins film contract". Chicago Daily Tribune. 31 March 1936. (about her first big break)
  • Antoinette Donnelly. "Shorter hair is definitely in, so get shears". Chicago Daily Tribune. 15 January 1939. (she gets about a paragraph describing her as one of the trendsetters)
  • "Film couple reweds". Chicago Daily Tribune. 11 February 1940. (mentions that she was Randall's "leading lady" in a recent movie)
  • "To seek divorce". Chicago Daily Tribune. 26 May 1940. ( Of note is the fact that only she gets a picture in the article)
  • "Beauty beaten". Chicago Daily Tribune. 31 August 1944. (Describes how she was assaulted at a party; calls her one of the leading beauties of her day.)
And that's just from one paper. I'm sure there's lots more available elsewhere if more people are inclined to look. I'll add some stuff to the article sometime soon. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I just hit the New York Times archives and found some more stuff:
  • "Louise Stanley Weds". New York Times. 28 August 1942. (about marriage to Charles A. Munn)
  • "Man held in beating of Mrs. Louise Munn". New York Times. 31 August 1944. (Existence of this story in NYT firmly establishes that she was not just notable in Illinois)
  • "Attack case continued". New York Times. 1 September 1944. (update on the above)
Stopped with these, but there's probably more. Zagalejo^^^ 07:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Most of Zagalejo's references are related to her husband or to an assault, neither of which constitutes standalone Wikipedia notability. She still fails WP:BIO as an actress, specifically having "significant roles in notable films" or a "large fan base". I only recognize one or two of her films and, in those, she has very minor roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. So your argument therefore is that she has only minor notability? Notability is notability; the fact that you only recognise a couple of her films is immaterial, and a reflection on you, not her. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Some of the newspaper articles I found note that she was a "leading lady" in several films. Unfortunately, I haven't found many specific details about those films, largely because I can only access a couple of online newspaper archives going back to the 1930s/1940s. However, those brief descriptions are enough to make me confident that she was a well-known celebrity in her day. I will keep looking for sources until you change your mind. Zagalejo^^^ 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I was able to do some research. Louise Stanley actually starred in twenty four films, many with Tex Ritter, Bob Steele, and a few other actors of the day. I see no reason why she would be deleted. I have updated her page, and added the biography titled "B-Western Ladies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.74.97 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • keep The nominator should have looked for references first, and improved the article--since she isnt the least obscure. . Of course, the real problem is the inexperience of the guy who wrote the article, who not only didnt look properly himself but was naive enough to write an article beginning "a little known actress", DGG (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (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.