Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Blatch


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Helen Blatch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as insufficiently globally notable actress. Fancruft. Quis separabit? 22:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Yet another actress with no mention at all of her stage performances. I will attempt to add them, based on reviews in newspapers and theatre magazines. (WP:NACTOR says nothing at all about a requirement to be "globally notable".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have made a start on the article, and added tables of stage and screen roles (more work to do). She has definitely had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances, and meets WP:NACTOR #1. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made by Rebecca during the AfD. She meets WP:NACTOR, and the article's references show that. (see the improvements made here) --DannyS712 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is not IMDb. None of the sources cite her as noteworthy, the links that do work merely record her amongst the general cast list and do not single out her performance or cite her as important, and a large proportion of the linked sources merely take one to the British Newspaper Archive subscription front page without sourcing the claims at all.Pupsbunch (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument is not in line with policy. Per WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." WP:RSC: "Reliable sources must be able to be verified. This does not mean that any particular person at any given moment must be capable of verifying them. .. The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time." RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I don't know what this article looked like before, but thanks to, it now passes NACTOR with flying colors. Blatch had major rôles in major productions and included in the article are critics' reviews of some of her performances. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moral Keep As per RebeccaGreen, it passes the NACTOR since she had major roles in major productions and reviews of her performances, but it is lacking web coverage such as Google and other sites which makes me skeptical. Sheldybett (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, I agree with the people who want to keep this article for the reasons that they are giving. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, thanks to who (or is it whom?:)) i have WP:FAITH in (not that i dont have it in other editors its just that if she says there is a source and its behind a paywall i believe her ... ok coola, we get it:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2019 (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.