Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Richardson (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 Withdraw as Keep as apparently this is a Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Richardson

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

I nearly would've PRODed too if it wasn't for the 2010 AfD thus it's certainly time for a new AfD, my searches have found nothing better than this, this and this and none of it suggests the needed solid independent notability, simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I question whether WP:BEFORE was performed on this before SwisterTwister nominated it for AfD. I've started cleaning up the article, adding the sources about this director of multiple stage productions across the UK. She is also in the news quite a lot: please see my additions to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, following improvements in references by Megalibrarygirl. Individually, a number of these, while mostly perfectly good for verifiability, have some problems for notability (distinctly local sources, not particularly substantial and so on), but overall almost all of the sources are clearly independent of the subject, the subject's work is regularly being reviewed by theatre critics in national sources and she has obtained some significant coverage. WP:GNG has, in my opinion, been met. PWilkinson (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved after nomination with additional press sources allowing WP:Verifiability and WP:BASIC to both be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another too-hasty AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:26, 24 May 2016 (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.