Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Woodell

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 Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. I am withdrawing my nomination. Thanks for all of your for finding sources and adding them to the article, I am glad we could move forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Woodell[edit]

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

This is an unsourced BLP article on a living person, an actress. I added the only reliable source which refers to the list of films she starred in. I was not able to find any sources for other details of her bio (though one of the references points out to a collection of local newspapers and non-reliable websites), and, what is most important, I was not able to establish the notability, for example, any reviews of her film participation or any discussion of her concerts or whatever. Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This is one of those ones I couldn't really believe were non-notable, so I spent some time searching... and came up empty. Frequently parenthetically mentioned in relation to her character (especially when DVD box sets of the first season of Petticoat Junction were released), but totally absent is any real coverage of the actress. On top of that (AfD is not for improving articles, blah, blah, blah) the current article is rife with puffery and peacocks, so it would need a fundamental re-write. Sorry, Bobby Jo, the article has got to go. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—based on excellent source-ferreting. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although hidden behind paywalls, I have found she gets ample coverage for her career moves, and has been interviewed. Chicago Tribune interviewed her. [1] They also have an article called Pat Woodell won't be 'caged' by role from 1971 which reads "Best known for her role as Bobbie Jo on CBS's Petticoat Junction, she left the series after three years because "I was going nowhere with it. I'm grateful for the" and the rest is hidden by a paywall. Its an article about her leaving that show, and why, and what she was doing after that. 368 results from a Google news archive search, and everything that looks like something to click on and read through, is a paywall. She clearly gets significant coverage though. Dream Focus 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see through that paywall either, but this paywall to the same article gives a word count on that article of 900, I would agree that that article almost certainly provides significant coverage. I tried Highbeam to get at it, too. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If one of you could edit the article and add this source, I would withdraw the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source DF found, this also appears to be enough for me to feel that WP:GNG is met. I wish I had full access to both articles, but there's enough from these two to make me think the WP:GNG bar is met, a feeling which is strengthened by a fairly wide swath of other, more passing coverage. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:23, 1 May 2012 (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.