Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. Woodham (2nd nomination)


 * 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/Rename. - Nom's reminded that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 21:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mrs. Woodham
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: 2nd nomination. Article is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look bad. We don't even know her name, or the most basic life info, except for apparent circumstances of her death; if it was even she who died in the fire. She has clearly been conflated with other individuals/actresses of the same time frame. Substantive improvement impossible due to "sketchy" at best details and no improvements since last AFD made by anyone including keep voters from previous nomination. Quis separabit? 12:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep IDONOTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. Any person with an article in the Old DND or Oxford DND (ODNB) is certainly notable and we should retain the article.  I appreciate that her precise identity is not as clear as desirable, as the ODNB makes clear.  I have checked the ODNB article which is a little longer than the WP one.  It says she died as a result of returning to the theatre to recover the takings.  Sources cited include Gentleman's Magazine which is certainly a WP:RS on such matters.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The entries in various biographical dictionaries are sufficient for someone from the 1700's. It also isn't unheard of that we don't have a first name (and if we did it might be the name of her husband, e.g. ) given the time period. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. An entry in the Dictionary of National Biography means she is undoubtedly notable, even though it is unfortunate we don't know her first name. Or maybe it makes the highly respected DNB "look bad" too? Should be moved to Mrs Woodham, though, per normal British English practice (this is what the DNB uses). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I support that rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2015 (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.