Talk:Adele Lacy

Notability

B-movie actress who appears on a website about obscure actresses? Doesn't bode well for WP:GNG, methinks. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I've just removed the external link to that website because I think it falls foul of WP:ELNO anyway. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

External link

User:Sitush, who is now stalking me again to team up with his buddy Deb removed:

• Adele Lacy Obscure Actresses website

from the external links. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the section above. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please remember, User:FloridaArmy, to ping other users if you refer to them in a discussion on the Talk page of an article, particularly if your comments are derogatory. As it happens, I don't agree with the removal of this reference, even though it is not a received source, because it contains useful information that we have no reason to doubt. After all, you did get that source from me in the first place.

In Wikipedia:Harassment, you'll see this statement: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Deb (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, put it back then. Since it says that she was a nobody, it just emphasises that this article should not exist here. No number of passing mentions of her in cast lists of contemporary newspapers will change that. - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

But now someone is trying to add it as a source, claiming guidelines aren't policy. You can trawl through WP:RSN and time and again you will see that sites like this are rejected because there is no means of verifying what is said and no obvious editorial oversight etc. Yes, there is a lot of detail in it but give me 30 minutes and I can produce an equivalent but vastly contradicting version and have it published on wordpress/blogspot etc. It simply will not do. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not contesting that. It's not proof of notability; I included it in Betty Bartley purely to show that Walter Futter had been married before he married Lacy, thus to correct an error in my original wording when I was cleaning up the Bartley article. However, the sources that say Futter was only married twice are not any better. (In fact, I don't think there are any.) Actually, I don't care whether either of the actresses are listed and would be quite happy to see them deleted. I might have deleted it myself if I hadn't previously been accused of being over-zealous with FloridaArmy's articles. Deb (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Deb. It wasn't you to whom I was referring - it was some later contributor who left that note in their edit summary. I agree that both of the bio articles should go to AfD but, like you, I am being accused of stuff by the creator and I'm not sure I want the drama. I would support any such nomination, assuming no-one else can find suitable sources. For what it is worth, the wordpress thing pretty much says she was a career fail anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lacy or Lacey

I have been working on an article about her husband, Walter Futter, and I think her last name is Lacey. That is the way it is spelled in official records and newspaper articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Or, perhaps there are two different women. In the announcement of Walter Futter's marriage it said that he married British actress Adele Lacey.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been confusing, but it seems that there is one Adele, but her name is generally spelled Lacey. And, if her obituary is correct, then she was born about 1911 (which is what the 1920 census says) and not 1913. From an obituary, her name was Adele Lacey Futter, so she was married to Futter last, not first.

I couldn't find anything in books and 68 newspaper articles for Adele Lacey and 16 for Adele Lacy. I only found a TCM and TV Guide web page with a short listing of her movies. So, I'm not so sure that she'd meet notability requirements, but I'll try to clean this up to see what we've got here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Anything which is so confusing is (a) not notable and (b) too reliant on original research/assumptions. We cannot use the census, Carole. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I get your point!!! I've got to square it away, though anyway, so that I'm clear what to add for the Walter Futter article. I personally don't see an issue with the census since it is supported by what is in the newspaper article (mother Mina and brother Marvin from Minneapolis). All that it adds is 1) she was born in MN and 2) father's name. If you have a problem, though, feel free to remove it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD

THe AfD has closed as keep but the rationales were poor because, for example, some of the keep !votes were based on presumed notability of films which is in fact in doubt. I think this needs to go back to AfD soon. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about going straight to a merge / redirect to Walter Futter's article personal life section, with a short blurb about her work? Probably bad form after just having a decision made, now that I think of it. But I like it other than that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea. I just think the sourcing and notability isn't as strong as the last three !voters at the AfD implied. It is mainly passing mentions etc and there is a cascade problem. Probably best just to leave it for now and review in a month or two. We're creating a house of cards here, as also happens with many articles about yoga. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol! Makes sense!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)