Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Wilcox

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The result was withdrawn by Gh87. Of all votes, the majority voted "keep" for this person's significance to the British arts and entertainment industry. If this AfD were opened a little longer, the debate would have resulted "kept". --Gh87 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Wilcox[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The actress's notability as an actress of Man About the House may be enough to some. However, her accomplishments are nothing more than... accomplishments that require importance and references. Even I think: the series that she appeared in is more notable as the British predecessor of Three's Company than she as the actress of the series. This article may appear well-written with filmography and other resumé and a prose and list formats; however, it has no citations and appears to be based on entries from other website databases such as IMDB. I have not seen her name in news and other references yet. Also, I have not seen her non-actress activities anywhere aside from Personal Life. It does not meet WP:N guideline. Gh87 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reason: This was proposed for deletion per WP:PROD; it was contested because she was an actress of Man About the House. --Gh87 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It looks as though Paula Wilcox has been spending much of her career on the stage and thus gets few good references (except presumably in the local press) there are cites around but they are mostly blogs. However "The Stage" a reputable enough site has many refs including [1], [2] ,[3], [4] and many more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great start — too bad I'm not sure for whether using them or not. These references are reviews of mainly the works she was in; well... they are more about the works themselves than the actress. Actually, Wikilinks of arts and other non-Wiki works may be enough for me. See Wikipedia:OVERLINK, WP:CITE, and WP:CITEKILL. By the way, ~~use strikethrough formats next time~~ (<strike></strike>)--Gh87 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a significant career on British TV, and in British theatre - a cult figure as Chrissy in Man About the House -, but she has done a lot of other work - the article isn't great but that can change ( its easy to tag stuff, why not try and improve articles) -- she is easily notable enough . Sayerslle (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Is this a joke? She has been a regular face on major programmes on British terrestrial television for nigh on forty years. If she doesn't far surpass the notability threshold then about 90% of all articles on here will have to go. Keresaspa (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm a little concerned about the nominator's motives here. I would suggested s/he reads WP:NACTOR before proposing/nominating any articles for deletion. Bob talk 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also plenty of references available online ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) to say nothing of print references. Can somebody just WP:SNOW this? Keresaspa (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[[reply]
Strong Keep I thought the PROD notice was daft - but this takes the biscuit! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously.--Michig (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (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.