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. The consensus below is that additional sources located in the course of this AfD are sufficient to demonstrate notability for this pre-internet era actor. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Durkin (actor)[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of an actor and film director, which is not reliably sourcing him over WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE for any particular accomplishment besides existing. Nearly all of his listed roles as an actor are either short films or "uncredited", and virtually all of his listed films as a director are short films -- and for sourcing, what we have here is two directories (the Internet Broadway Database and Findagrave) rather than any actual reliable source coverage about him. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can demonstrate notability properly, but he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not just nominally verifiable in a couple of databases, to earn an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR. Has played named roles in multiple notable films. None appear to be significant. Better sourcing might change my mind. I haven't been able to locate any myself.~~ Added sources sufficient to meet [WP:DIRECTOR]. Gab4gab (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe this discussion is taking place of all the bios(WP:FILMBIO) I've contributed. You'd think people here would be grateful. How many people in the silent and sound entertainment are listed whom are much more insignificant than Durkin. He should have long had an article thats why I made one up on him. Just because a few people don't know of him doesn't mean he wasn't significant or doesn't count. That's the whole point of the article to teach you. He was a stage, screen actor and screen director which should get him place on wikipedia. He doesn't have to be Cecil B. DeMille. Most of Durkins directorial efforts are lost as I would expect many who edit silent movies would understand.Koplimek (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said he has to be Cecil B. DeMille — but what he does have to be is reliably sourceable as passing an actual notability criterion in either WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE, which is a significantly higher standard than "user-generated databases like Findagrave and IBDb verify that he existed". And nobody owes you a cookie just because you're here, either — your job in creating articles is to demonstrate and source notability properly, which you did not do in this case. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you or anybody owed me anything. The article was sourced WP rules. Koplimek (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Findagrave and IBDb are not sources that assist in demonstrating notability. It's possible that the article might be salvageable with proper sources, which it looks like some other users are starting to do below, but there was nothing in the article at the time of nomination that constituted a valid source. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, yes they wereWP:CS, inline citation and general reference. Even the WP:QUESTIONABLE, questionable content of websites, which nevertheless are still citable in limited usage. A reliable sources box follows them which is usually the case seen on new articles. Koplimek (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've found enough to beef it up a bit. He did act and direct on Broadway, after all. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please help me understand. Are you saying he meets a notability guideline because he acted and directed on Broadway or that he doesn't need to meet any guidelines for the same reason? (or something else entirely?) Gab4gab (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject had an entry in a 1914 Who's Who for American theater, which I've added to the article as a general reference (and left it to the article's creator to extract details for use in the article itself). Also, here is a listing of theater publications that mention the subject. Most of them are brief mentions, but can be used to reliably source the subject's appearances on the American stage. I didn't do any checking for contemporaneous film appearances, but there's enough here about his theater work to sustain the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I find that publication and the Notable People in Music and Drama book are fine sources for info on so long ago performers who through early death, marriage, retirement are long forgotten. I saw Durkin's entry in Notable People several days ago but put off entering it. I sometimes forget the title of the book but always go back to Henry B. Harris wiki cause he's the first person I retrieved the info from that source on. Cheers!Koplimek (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since nomination the necessary independent third party references have been added to bring this article up to strength. Certainly the three Variety articles from 1914, 1915 alone constitute proof of independent reporting of this subject's notability in his time. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (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.