Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanche Devereaux


 * 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   -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blanche Devereaux

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is to no reliable third person information about the character not the actress that played her. This is the distinction people who will no doubt campaign for this article to be saved will say there is information when in fact they talk about this article. There lots of information on the actress who played the role but not specifically the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Someone might want to add references to the article, but the way to rectify that problem is to fix it, not to delete it. Vartanza (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are so convinced it suitable for an article why don't you include some. WP:RELIABLE SOURCES if you believe its notable. The WP:BURDEN on the editor to show its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are completely incorrect. BURDEN applies to specific facts or assertions; the assertion that no sources can be found to demonstrate notability rests upon the editor arguing for deletion, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This AfD was originally created on 5 September but the nominator did not properly complete the nomination by placing it on the day's AfD page. Completing nomination now. Redfarmer (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for much the same reasons I argued for here. Many of the same sources also apply to Blanche. Main character in one of the most influential American television series, as well as one other. Redfarmer (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep You'll have to just delete every page on wikipedia that is about a fiction character. I am certain references can be found - it's only work to do it. Vinithehat (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources supposedly exist but not one person has provided a noteworthy or worthy list to demonstrate notability. Why is nobody providing sources if the evidence is so overwhelming. The majority of fictional characters especially television have significant sources from third person sources that show their notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the "books" link after "Find Sources" and you'll find your list of sources, many of them reliable sources. You can see that mentioned at WP:BEFORE. First Light (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep major character in long-running show, nominator appears to misunderstand sources that exist vs. sources currently in the article. No fatal problems evident, there is nothing wrong with the article that cannot be fixed by editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've always felt that in situations such as this you can at least reference extensively from the show itself, and that covers most of the referencing. (in addition, though one should seek out independent references). Danski14(talk) 23:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject has been written about in thousands of reliable sources.  Where else can we find stupid stuff like this except Wikipedia?  It's not like we are going to run out of shelf space!  EnabledDanger (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major character on a notable television series. And no shortage of space on Wikipedia, so no reason to delete this, nor is there anything to gain by doing so.  If you want references, which aren't really needed, click Google news and you can wade through all of those results.   D r e a m Focus  18:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't believe this was even nominated: one of the four stars of a hit TV show, that ran for seven years in first run and forever in syndication. Google Books finds tons of stuff, including this quote where Rue McClanahan says that playing this role made her "one of the most recognizable women in the world".  --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I added a section called "significance" and a couple of references to the article. Still can't believe this was ever nominated. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.