Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesey Alfred Davoren

Add links
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. Initially opinions were split, but towards the end the view is almost unanimously that the improvements during the AfD have established the subject's notability. Sandstein 16:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vesey Alfred Davoren

[edit]

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

Vesey Alfred Davoren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC (WP:SOLDIER is now deprecated). There are some hits for "Vesey Davoren" or "Vesey O'Davoren" on newspapers.com but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV I can see. Film roles generally minor. Sourced mainly to genealogical records; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some links https://www.lordheath.com/Vesey_ODavoren.html ; http://www.cinefania.com/persona.php/Vesey O'Davoren/en ; https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/154709367/vesey-o'davoren ; & https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/255875-lieut-vesey-a-davoren-suffolk-regiment-confusion-over-death/ Rodolph (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None reliable? Incontrovertible, I'd say. One of them even includes a photo of a newspaper cutting. Is this a matter of taste rather than reliable biography? Rodolph (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper clipping itself would be reliable if we had the actual newspaper. But the clipping does not say what newspaper it came from, and it's published on a web forum, which as user-generated content is not reliable. More broadly, notability is not the same thing as WP:ITEXISTS. The subject of a biography must have received significant coverage, not just coverage full stop, to qualify for an article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
user-generated content, how else do articles get written then if not by users? Rodolph (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying the whole article was made up, that Davoren is as real as Peppa Pig? Rodolph (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying that we can't rely on self-published or user-generated content as sources for Wikipedia articles. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the info that made him notable was deleted, so here it is as a reminder:
'He enrolled in the British Army's 7th Suffolk Regiment, under the command of Colonel Charles Douglas Parry Crooke. In October 1915 his Company (B) was massacred in action around the Hohenzollern Redoubt, just after the Battle of Loos.
The 7th Battalion of the Suffolk Regiment's War Diary,[5] 13 October 1915, states that:
Davoren ... was wounded [shot in foot and then side] in the action on the Hohenzollern Redoubt on October 11th, but continued to lead his Company until killed by a shot from a machine gun.
-Officers Killed
Major Currey (Vere Fortrey), ("an unsurpassed linguist". Killed commanding ‘B’ Company in the first attack upon the south side of the “Hair-pin”);
Captain Cobbold (Charles Augustus), (a pre-war director of the brewing magnates Ind, Coope and Co.);
Captain Sorley (Charles Hamilton) (the poet);
Lieutenant Gedge (Peter);
Lieutenant Wood (Geoffrey Dayrell);
2/Lieutenant Hartopp (Charles William Liddell);
2/Lieutenant Lee (Richard).
-Severely wounded
2/Lieutenant Smith (Donald Claude) died that day.
-Officers Wounded
Major Henty (George Herbert), (died 30 Nov. 1917)
and
Lieutenant Davoren (V. A.) [only survivor].
Davoren was rescued, carried for two miles, by Sergeant-Major Martin, of Bury.[6]
Film career
In his youth, as an undergraduate, before World War One he acted in Dublin's Abbey Theatre.[7] In the 1914-1919 war he was wounded thrice and was at one time reported dead. He temporarily lost his voice in a German mustard gas attack, and was given six months to live if he moved to a dry climate. He arrived in Hollywood, California, with his wife in 1920 where he acted in silent films before recovering his voice. He also directed plays and was in an early Hollywood Bowl production of The Pied Piper, taking the title role. He had changed his name to O'Davoren on arriving in America, on applying for U.S. Citizenship, perhaps aware of the romanticism of the Clann O'Dabhoireann and the American fondness for things Irish.[8] Between 1927 and 1957, he appeared in circa 67 films, mostly as butlers.[7][9]'Rodolph (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodolph What part of this is the part you're pointing at to show notability? -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being with his wife the lead photo & caption of the front page of The Sun and The New York Herald of Sunday 9 May 1920 (see https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030273/1920-05-09/ed-1/seq-25/) seems notable.Rodolph (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" isn't quite the same thing as "being famous". But additionally, that's about his wife. He's not even in that photograph. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davoren is in the photo, twice even, the death mask is of him.Rodolph (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only see the death mask, twice. The guy on the left isn't Davoren. So no, Davoren is not in this photograph, as far as I can tell. But either way, that's all this is - a photograph and an image caption. Is there anything you can find of him in, for example, books about early film actors? Or the silent film scene in LA? You mentioned his house in LA, is there information on that that could be relevant? I think the newspapers have been plumbed about as thoroughly as they can be at this point, and none of them look like significant coverage (they just briefly say that he is significant, as a person). We're all obviously striking out just searching for his name, but I don't think Googling his name would turn up, for example, a reasonably extended section on him in a printed book about early 20thc movie actors. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he was in the photo. He is in the front page montage, twice. The house, the details were listed in the refs/footnotes, have a look. 21:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph (talk • contribs)
I know this isn't a sign of notability (who are we/you to ascertain what or who is notable, anyway?), but it shows he existed: ( https://www.fold3.com/document/8439819/declaration-of-intention-1926-naturalizations-ca-southern ) Rodolph (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are exactly the people to judge notability. Notability is a Wikipedia guideline—it's not a philosophical judgment on a person's worth or significance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davoren was passed as notable in March 2018.. Why not now? What has changed?19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Well, I tried. I do think it's quite possible that there's some reasonable amount of coverage in a print book somewhere, and a way to find that might be via the house (for a local history book) or via the long list of minor movie credits (something in a book on the LA silent film scene, maybe). His easily misspelled name surely isn't helping, either. I'm not terribly inclined towards advocating deletion for historical figures with factual, non-polemic biographies, but the sourcing here is thin enough that I'm not convinced that's what we're looking at, and more doesn't seem to be forthcoming. I'm concerned that the only information we have for his death is the findagrave website. I do find it very odd that a 100-year-old man who had been a film actor of any note could die in 1989 without an obituary in the newspapers, though of course that isn't completely impossible. I'd be happy (relieved, even) to switch this vote to keep if anything further is found. Update: striking my !vote; obituary found. I don't know that we can truthfully call any of this "significant coverage", but at least it's no longer entirely passing mentions. If someone wants to turn this into a well-sourced stub, I'm not going to be getting in their way. (asilvering (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)) -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is stuff in a printed source, see the footnotes, the Suffolk Regiment's WW1 war diary. This man's notability is cumulative. Surviving the Western Front, having been said dead, and then re-inventing himself in the USA, being in dozens of films and then living to 100. None perhaps 'notable' but as a whole it is. His WW1 was notable.Rodolph (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What we're trying to establish here is notability based on significant coverage, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. None of that is significant coverage; it's a series of facts or assertions about his life. The relevant section is here: WP:SIGCOV. If you have additional evidence that you believe meets this, please share it! Regarding your earlier Davoren was passed as notable in March 2018, can you explain what you mean by this? -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. Interesting point re lack of obit. People who excessively outlive their contemporaries can often be slightly unduly forgotten.Rodolph (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re Asilverlining: 'Regarding your earlier Davoren was passed as notable in March 2018, can you explain what you mean by this?', by that I mean that I assumed (as one is told that so & so from 'bio verification' (or some-such name) had checked it) that new articles were assessed by various roaming editors, and therefore that when the article was posted in March 2018 someone must have approved it. Rodolph (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was likely new page patrol. A reviewer from new page patrol or articles for creation may mark an article as reviewed but nothing prevents other editors who perceive issues with the article from tagging it with a maintenance tag, proposing it for deletion, or nominating it for deletion, as here. Being marked as reviewed on creation does not mean an article is "approved" forever. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivy de Verley, Mrs Davoren, her portrait (dated 1924 or 1927) of Nola Luxford is in New Zealand's National Library, Wellington.Rodolph (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of Ivy de Verley's mask portrait of James McBey, is in the collection of Aberdeen Archives, Gallery & Museums (Scotland)
Aberdeen Archives' quote: 'Artist Info - Ivy de Verley was born in Jamaica, West Indies on 27 July 1879. She lived in London, England for many years and studied in Berlin, before returning to Jamaica. Her Jamaican studio was destroyed by an earthquake in 1920, at which time she moved to Los Angeles. During the 1920s and 30s Ivy painted "mask" portraits and was active in the local art scene as the wife of actor Captain Vesey O'Davoren. She died in Los Angeles on 27 December 1963.' ( https://emuseum.aberdeencity.gov.uk/objects/139170/mask-portrait-of-james-mcbey-photograph-album-belonging-t?ctx=a162be231c3a02d15d6988782e012d5c6b4b8c42&idx=0 ) Rodolph (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivy's pastel portrait of Halliwell Hobbes was sold on 31 May 2017, at Burstow & Hewett, East Sussex (UK).Rodolph (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating, but all that does is bolster the notability claim for THE WIFE, not THE HUSBAND. I suggested above that the information about her could be put in its own article, as she's clearly more notable than he is based on your own evidence. Even the nominator says he found the page while searching for information about the wife. Intothatdarkness 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivy de Verley now exists, so any and all additional information about her can be added to that page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Maybe now she can garner the respect she deserves instead of being buried in this article. Intothatdarkness 03:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This respectable Friends of the Suffolk Regiment blog describes the action at the Hairpin during the Battle of Loos, in October 1915 ( https://www.friendsofthesuffolkregiment.org/operation-legacy/the-hairpin ).
Alongside Davoren that day were Charles Sorley and Vere Fortrey Currey ( https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/93077 ).
Davoren was the only one of the 10 officers of his Company (B), of the 7th battalion of the Suffolk Regiment, to survive that day, & himslef had been reported killed. Rodolph (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find nothing that carries significant coverage about him and I've looked for several days. Lots of one line mentions for various films in both archive.org and newspapers.com. I did find the original source for this blog. While we cannot use the blog as it is self-published, we could use the original book. Also found this clipping that says he was interviewed as part of a 1986 cable TV series Old Hollywood as Seen Through the Eyes of Her Senior Residents, Section V, p 1 and Section V, p 6 and a single line, not even a proper obit that confirms the death date. Short of going to a library that might have non-digitized records on him, or finding a transcript or review of his 1986 interview, there just doesn't seem to be enough information available to write a detailed biography from available published and curated secondary sources. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times, 24 November 1986, page 59 (by Ann Japenga):' One of the video's subjects is Vici O'Davoren, 98. After inhaling poisonous gas in World War I, O'Davoren lost his ability to speak. So he came to Hollywood to act small parts in silent films, a resourceful move since he didn't regain his speech for seven years. Like the other characters in the video [made by Lyn Picallo & Wendy Robbins], he talks mostly about Hollywood as home, not as a sprawling movie studio, says Robbins. ' (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-11-24-vw-12858-story.html) Rodolph (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to Vesey & Ivy O'Davoren's extraordinary LA home (2049-N-Las-Palmas-Ave_Los-Angeles_CA_90068), this sale particulars includes photos of them therein. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2049-N-Las-Palmas-Ave_Los-Angeles_CA_90068_M12539-92962#photo5 Rodolph (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FULLER listing, more photos: https://www.estately.com/listings/info/2049-n-las-palmas-avenue--1 Rodolph (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TOPANGA YACHT CLUB, Topanga, California: 2021-08-05 The Malibu Times - "The Topanga Yacht Club" by Pablo Capra :(https://lowertopangaarchive.blogspot.com/2021/08/2021-08-05-malibu-times-topanga-yacht.html), here's the main part of their article, some of which is correct: 'In 1924, the Los Angeles Athletic Club bought Topanga Beach with the intention of building a Yacht Harbor. To promote the cause, British actor Captain Vesey O’Davoren (1888-1989) founded the Topanga Yacht Club in 1928. He proudly claimed descent from two English Prime Ministers, William Pitt (1708-1778) and “Iron Duke” Arthur Wellesley (1769-1852), as well as a family of medieval Irish scholars. His title, Captain, came from serving in the British Royal Air Force during World War I, where he was injured several times, including by a mustard gas attack that left him voiceless. In 1920, he left England, for better acting opportunities in Hollywood. He could still work because films were silent, and recovered his voice in time for the advent of sound films in 1927, but mostly played butlers. He did not live at Topanga Beach. Hardly any of the Club’s members did. Topanga was simply a preferred shelter for small boat owners before the Bay had marinas or breakwaters. USC students turned the social club into a racing team in 1930, with O’Davoren remaining its leader, or Commodore....The Club’s first officer, Helene Raymond (1878-1951), lived at Topanga Beach. She was the nation’s number two archer and an old friend of O’Davoren, who’d previously served on the California State Archery Association...' Rodolph (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rodolph at this point you're WP:BLUDGEONing the process. To quote: "If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear." I suggest you stop and let this AFD take its course. Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, and might ask you not to bully me. I have been finding NEW information, or clarifying things, or helping you to see info that had been obscured by other deletions, in an attempt to prevent a great wrong.Rodolph (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bullying you in any sense. Did you even read the quote from BLUDGEON? Have you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? I suggest you stop or this will go to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have posted fresh info on the subject and am not trying to bludgeon anyone. Finding more info seems a good thing to do and to say that is bludgeoning others feels like victim blaming, in that O'Davoren is the victim and needs defending. Ergo not bludgeoning but self-defence. Sorry if that has bored you. Rodolph (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is demonstrated the notability of the wife, which led to the creation of an article covering her. Your repeated postings could easily be seen as bullying those who disagree with you. Mztourist is correct...take a step back and take comfort in the fact that this led to the recognition of a woman's notability (something you commented on early in the process), even if that wasn't your original objective. Intothatdarkness 14:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I never assumed that I was remotely vexing anyone. I just like information and thought that it had better be enthusiastically aired, and that some of the finer points of Davoren's notability are being missed. What is there not to like? It is a shame that my joining in is seen as threatening. Rodolph (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I understand the problem. By British standards Davoren is easily notable; Irish-English-Suffolk-Hollywood, etc. If he was to be judged by just UK standards, or if he was Polish and this page was say Polish Wiki, he'd be without doubt in, but English is international so his notability has to compete with global English thus worldwide and amongst editors/people who may not hold WWI in as much awe as the English/British/Irish do. Rodolph (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, its just that he fails WP:BASIC globally. Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am utterly baffled by your responses on this AfD. What everyone is either trying to find, or has given up on finding (and thus called for "delete"), is significant coverage that establishes the notability (in Wikipedia terms) of the subject. The full guideline pages are here: WP:N for everything, and WP:BIO for people. You appear to be responding based on some other definition of "notable" that is not found in either place, or in any of the other sub-guidelines people have linked you to. It isn't "notable" to have many film roles, unless they are major roles. It isn't notable to have survived WWI when others died. It isn't notable to have a house in LA. It isn't notable to immigrate to the USA. It isn't notable to have a notable wife. It isn't notable to be a descendent of William Pitt. That doesn't mean that he isn't interesting, that he never existed, that none of the information you've provided is true, or that we're trying to perform a damnatio memoriae. It just means that he does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia entry. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In 1989 Variety published an obituary of Vesey Alfred Davoren. In fact a chunk of text in this article was a copyright violation of the obituary so I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet. I've added the source and some information and removed the copyvio from the article. Unfortunately this obituary isn't accessible without access to the Variety archives (some libraries might have this). Aside from this obituary, sources are incredibly weak and passing. The article needs MAJOR clean up, which once done will relegate it to a stub most likely. I think the existence of the obituary probably invalidates a lot of the arguments above (which I agreed with until this popped up in my search). Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a helpful source, but a single obituary is not WP:THREE in-depth sources. I'd reconsider my nomination if there were even one more in-depth source. However, 5.5 paragraphs in one notable source does not notability make, IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am under no illusions that this article will likely always be a stub with a handful of sources supporting it. However, Variety is pretty much the paper of record for Hollywood. An obituary there counts for a lot. We also have an entry in this book (now added to article) along with the many passing mentions and filmographies elsewhere. That should do it. (Sidenote: WP:THREE is just an essay and one that many misunderstand. It is about using the best three sources to support information or an article rather than providing a larger number of sources that editors do not have time to go through. Mistakenly, people use this to argue that three RS are needed to give notability. Always leaves me scratching me head.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully disagree that this is enough but we're at the border line and it comes down to individual takes on the sources. WP:THREE is good shorthand for notability: one bit of WP:SIGCOV is clearly not enough, two is getting there and probably enough for notability, and three seals it. Three good sources is a good rule of thumb for notability and I'm comfortable citing the essay for that view. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also an obituary in Classic Images from 1989 but I don't think it's been digitized. It's fine if you have your own standard of needing three reliable sources to determine notability. It is just bizarre to quote the WP:THREE essay (literally called Three Best Sources) which does not make this argument at all. I have actually abided by the spirit of this essay by only providing the "best" sources I have found - otherwise I would have refbombed every passing mention. Please see the author's clarifying note where he says This was never intended to set a standard that three good sources is either a necessary or sufficient condition for a topic to be considered notable. 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir.copic (talk • contribs)
    Maybe the author wanted the standard to be higher then that. Otherwise, what should it be? Three bad sources? One or two bad ones? One good one and two bad ones? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your find of the obituary got me trawling back through the passing newspaper mentions again, and while I still didn't find anything sizeable, there is this LA Times article (20 June 1934: 10) that describes him and three others (one of whom has a wikipedia page) as "well-known actors" (my italics), distinct from the other "players" mentioned afterwards. That's at least better than what I found earlier, which mostly just established "he is an actor", full stop. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the WP:ANYBIO thresholds as an actor or soldier. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage about him building a boat in his backyard, and who he is related to and married to. [1] Minor coverage in places like [2] as he and two others sail to New York saying they are fed up with English producers. 84 newspaper.com search results to go through. They considered him important enough to mention all sorts of things about him. And with the obituary Vladimir.copic found, that's enough to convince me he is notable. He lived to be 100 years old. Dream Focus 07:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "1 Sep 1937, 28 - The Los Angeles Times at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2021-12-03.
  2. ^ "15 Feb 1920, Page 23 - New York Herald at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2021-12-03.
Extended, only marginally relevant discussion
7&6=thirteen I often see you citing WP:Preserve in AfDs discussions as a reason to keep articles. In this particular case the discussion doesn't have anything to do with the content of the article and that's what WP:Preserve is about. So can you clarify how it's relevant? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created at considerable effort. It contains a lot of information useful to our readers. One should err on the side of keeping too much of the irrelevant, and not on deleting the relevant. WP:Not paper applies too. While I WP:AGF, you might read the linked pages so we can avoid this rhetorical question in the future.
The article is now amply sourced, which should be a consideration.
Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you do AGF, you might do well to assume others have read and considered those linked essays. The article appears to be an outgrowth of the creator's interest in genealogy, which while labor-intensive does not guarantee notability. I, for one, have always been dubious of the obituary standard. Obituaries are not fact-checked to any degree, and are often produced either prior to death by the individual concerned or otherwise curated by family members. Intothatdarkness 19:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, you "might do well to assume others have read and considered those linked essays." Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander That there is a disagreement about the consequences of such consideration means we disagree. Your claim that this obituary was not fact checked sounds like pure personal supposition to me. WP:OR, WP:Synth. WP:Verifiabilty not WP:Truth. Ipse dixit butters no parsnips here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you resort to a wall of meaningless wiki-links. I was referring to the obituary standard in general and the fact that not all of them are fact-checked. Therefore I question their reliability as sound sources. And I find it quite ironic that you would link an essay about dogmatic statements. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7 6=13, It's hard for me to assume good faith when you discounted WP:THREE in your "vote" because it's an essay and then cited multiple essays in your subsequent comments to support your opinion. Also, it's rather bad faithed to call my question rhetorical. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why someone is citing a guideline for a reason to keep the article that has absolutely nothing to do with notability or the AfD process. And I was wanting an answer about it. So in no was it rhetorical. Outside of that, from what I can tell Variety has an extremely low to possibly non-existing bar for who they do an obituary on outside of the person acting in a movie. Even if it's a single, supporting role. So there's reason to use them writing an obituary for this person as some kind of notability indicator. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued soliloquy duet has devolved into diatribe, resembling a personal attack. Given your history, I am not surprised; but it is neither persuasive nor helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your defensiveness, calling my message a diatribe, and bringing up my history (whatever that is), instead of taking my question as a good faith effort to understand how WP:Preserve relates to AfDs could be considered a personal attack. I'm not surprised given your history of randomly insulting me when I ask you good faithed questions. Of course none of it has been productive. Usually the productive way to deal with being asked a question that you don't have an answer to is to just say so and move on. Not turn it into a personal battle with multiple people. Otherwise, this kind of unproductive, needless head butting and "diatribes" are bound to happen. Maybe don't be so triggered by someone showing curiosity toward you next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, could you please change "duet" to "trio"? I agree with Adamant1's reply, and it is disappointing to see that your behaviour hasn't improved despite the recent AN/I visits. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of music, O'Davoren's great-great-grandfather Rev Michael Davoren (died 1810) was collated to the Chantership of Kilfenora, parish of Noughaval and Carrane, County Clare, Ireland, in 1790.Rodolph (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's the obituary, which I guess is something, but it's hardly enough on it's own to justify keeping the article. Sure he's acted in a lot of things. 99% of his appearance seem to be pretty trivial roles though. For instance he played a butler like 26 times, a ship steward 7, and was a voice at a station once. All of those are pretty insignificant bit parts. So I don't really think anyone can argue the notability criteria for actors should apply to him. It's not surprising there isn't much in the references about him either considering that most of his roles were extremely low tier. In the meantime people can find the information that's in his obituary from the actual obituary or IMDB. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Obits are not slamdunk evidence of notability. If that is the best we can do then this doesnt pass N. Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources have surfaced during this AfD to suggest notability, if obscure now (notably does not expire). Many sources need to be tossed and the remaining kept from which a short article can be written. I'm always more impressed when a reliable third party source directly asserts notability: "well-known actors" is a 'significant' statement of notability per GNG. Another source: "a famous Hollywood actor". Given this, and the age of the topic difficulty of finding old sources, I think the right thing is keep for now and rewrite with the best sources. Rodolph will need help, it's unclear they have a solid grasp on what is a good source, when to include something or not, and copyvio concerns. -- GreenC 23:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources (in particular the early 20th century newspaper articles) provided do appear to bring this subject over the notability threshold, just. I considered a merge to his wife as an alternative to deletion but ultimately feel the sources establish sufficient independent notability. Polyamorph (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as enough reliable sources coverage has been identified for a pass of WP:GNG such as the Variety obituary and coverage in books and the LA Times imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 07:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The atrocious quality of the references isn't very surprising considering 7&6=thirteen appears to be the main editor of the article since it was nominated for deletion. Hopefully whoever closes this ignores his and other ARS members votes. Since they are clearly meritless. Saying this should be kept because of WP:HEY, which should be disregarded since it's an essay anyway, is a joke. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I never knew it was that, until I got to the Afd. I saw the image on the article on a driveby and thought it might be worth saving but its now plain as day what it is it. It looks like a really poor quality references stich up. There is no reference I put my finger that give some framework of events, for the mans life. Not a single reference is available, which is shame as the man looks really interesting. scope_creepTalk 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: There is a lot of great editors here, even the ones in ARS, that have created mountains of great articles, reams of them. scope_creepTalk 20:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he looks like an interesting person. Unfortunately we aren't doing him or the readers of Wikipedia any favors with how the article is though. As far as there being a lot of great editors here, I agree. Which is why I stuck to the current AfD and particular edits in my comment. Outside of that, two of the points that WP:HEY is in expression of are a desire to see quality content on Wikipedia and a belief in a reasonable standard of notability. Neither of which are satisfied here. So WP:HEY clearly doesn't apply. I don't think it's wrong or an insinuation of anything bad about particular editors to say so either. That said, I don't really have that much of a problem with MrsSnoozyTurtle citing WP:HEY because at least she fairly assessed things before voting keep and it's not the only thing her opinion hinges on. Which can't be said for the other places it was used. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who participated in the recent ARS-AN/I debacle advocating for the deletion of ARS (and topic ban for 7&6), I strongly object to editors attempts to turn this AfD into another trial of ARS. It was clear at the last AN/I that editors are sick of the discussion and that those involved should drop the stick. I don't see anything the least bit controversial about the behaviour of ARS-affiliated editors in this discussion excepting some par-for-the-course jostling.
To address some of Scope Creep's issues, I believe the Variety obit and these two sources [1] [2] provide a framework for biography. A second obituary was published in Classic Images but has not been digitised as far as I can tell. I also implore you to actually read User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources and the author's note as the essay does not say what I suspect you think it does - it is an essay about brevity (providing fewer sources) in AfDs not about a minimum number of sources for notability. There is no way to "satisfy WP:THREE" here unless you believe editors should be providing less sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: Where did I say anything about ARS or the ANI complaint in the comment that your responding to? People who are loosely connected to ARS at best aren't now suddenly above approach or exempt from being involved in AfD discussions just because there was an ANI discussion about ARS. If you really want to see the stick about ARS being dropped, then drop it and don't bring the group up in conversations where they weren't being discussed. In the meantime, life goes on. People from ARS are going to interact with people who aren't from ARS and visa versa. That doesn't mean every conversation that involves someone who is a member of ARS has to do with ARS, or that we shouldn't interact with ARS members now because there was an ANI complaint about them. Like they can't be called out or questioned about anything anymore "because ANI complaint" or whatever. Get real. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll WP:AGF here so I'll briefly explain. You MrsSnoozyTurtle added a warning [3] regarding ARS and canvassing (which Adamant1 later readded [4]) on this page when to my mind there was no evidence of canvassing or blind/block voting. ARS or the AN/I was then mentioned in these comments [5] [6] [7] in above discussions. This is all I'll say on the matter as I'll lead by example and drop the stick. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: Wrong, I didn't add the warning. As the diff you linked to shows it was added by MrsSnoozyTurtle. I did bring up ARS, but not in relation to the ANI. The project isn't a taboo subject that people are banned from discussion now just because there was an ANI complaint about it. That said, I only mentioned it in passing and it had nothing to do with the point I was making about HEY not being met. So your the one making this about ARS. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is neither a standard nor a consensus that at least two obituaries must exist for notability and I have no idea where you got the idea that there was. One obituary in a major national newspaper is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And which major national newspaper carried an obituary for him? Mztourist (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take it the reference is to ProQuest 1286134366, an obituary in Variety. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say any did in his case, although Variety may count as one (you will note that I have not expressed an opinion either way as to this article). I was answering the general claim that there was some sort of consensus about number of obituaries before some editors believe such a claim. There is no such consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the military career is not notable, but the film actingi s, even tho the roles were not major. There seem to be enough sources given above to improve the article to clarify the notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some LA newspaper articles from the 1920's about his stage career where he played some larger roles. Probably there's more to be found there. In 1934 the LA Times named him as one of the "well-known actors" appearing in a play. ETA: I added another paragraph for the stage roles; there seem to be a lot of them and not as butlers and bit parts. The "Young Actor Fooled Caster in Aged Role"[8] and "Two Actors Add Greatly to 'Amber'"[9] have WP:SIGCOV enough for him to be a notable WP:NACTOR based on his stage career. He's the subject of the first article and one of "two notable actors" profiled in the second. BBQboffin (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed it to keep. There has been a lot of work on this article and its still ongoing, even now. There are two obits, both with different dates on his film career, so they look to be good, plus the Google books obit entry on his film career, plus the addition of the coverage from BBQboffin above noting he has some Irish ancestry which gives him deep historical presence plus the long career in film plus the the other works that is still ongoing makes it a good keep. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 12 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vesey_Alfred_Davoren&oldid=1073185030"