Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Blais

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) Shadow311 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Blais[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Working actor, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If we can verify that he actually has won the 2 awards mentioned in the intro, then maybe he would meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR, but I was not able to find any news articles as such. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's obviously very poor as written, but it is fixable. It's completely missing a lot of stuff that helps to bolster notability, including several Dora Mavor Moore award nominations (his strongest notability was more as a stage actor than a film or television one), and the referencing actually can be repaired — he hasn't been nearly as active lately as he was in the 1980s and 1990s (he's basically retired from acting and owns a small art gallery now), so his sourcing wouldn't Google very well, but there's quite a bit available in ProQuest. So no disrespect to nominator, as the article is absolutely in an awful state right now and is actually missing a lot of what it should contain — so I totally get why it was listed for deletion, but I'll also take a stab at fixing it right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the deed. Article now has 24 footnotes and a lot more content. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated above, article was just lacking the proper research to find suitable references rather than the subject not meeting notability guidelines. The work done to fix that has pretty clearly addressed the problem, so now an obvious keep in my opinion. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now properly sourced to demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2024 (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.