Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. Woodham

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Woodham[edit]

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

WP:GNG DexDor (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR #2 after reading the entry in the first source which said she had significant following.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete WP:NACTOR #3 : "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.", nothing unique nothing innovative about this person.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects are not supposed to meet every single criterium of our guidelines, let alone WP:NACTOR #3 which is the most difficult to meet. Cavarrone 16:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially thanks to User:Victuallers awesome work at expanding it! Missvain (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, after expansion apparently passes GNG and NACTOR. Cavarrone 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH - the current article text fails to make notability clear, save for those of us with enough of a history and theater background to know who unusual women were in legitimate theater in that era. Needs work, but worth keeping. Source material pans out. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:26, 15 March 2015 (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.