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 , WP:GNG has been met per the inclusion of new sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sian Thomas[edit]

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

Though Sian Thomas seems to have had a solid career in the theatre I can't really see how she meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Her most well known role is a minor character in one of the Harry Potter films. The last line of the article suggests her agent has has a hand in writing this. Thomas is well received by The Guardian but this only amounts to one line in a lengthy review. I can't find anything else of significance. Time for this to go? Sionk (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do seem to be plenty of major theatre roles (leading ladies), here are some Guardian reviews. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf, leading lady

RSC Macbeth, Lady Macbeth

The Persians, the Queen, "a tremendous performance"

But are they in notable theatre performances? Films and TV series are seen by millions and often widely written about, but theatre productions much less so. She was nominated for a 2003 Laurence Olivier Theatre Award in 2002, but I'm not sure that alone meets WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were major productions by serious theatre companies reviewed favourably in national newspapers. Being chosen by the Royal Shakespeare Company to play Lady Macbeth says clearly that an actor is notable. I have added half-a-dozen refs to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article is very old, and has not been appropriately expanded, I say Delete unless we're going do an edit-athon source and incorporate material about her, starting with a picture. Keep L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those reasons form any part of the article deletion criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They form a part of my vote. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I see, but as I thought I'd made clear, they are not valid reasons, and the closing admin will probably therefore not take account of your !vote. Notability does not depend on what is currently in an article, but on what could be there, i.e. what the situation is in the world. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I didn't know that! All the deletionist cultists (read: Snuggums) rant on and on about how Notability has to be ascertained in the article itself. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ENT, as per Chiswick Chap. The links he gives are major roles at important venues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The GNG has been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2017 (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.