Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Chambers

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Chambers

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

I stumbled across this article as an under-referenced BLP. I have been unable to find any mention of her on any other website, other than an IMDb page and a short filmography on the BFI website, and so I've been unable to find anything to back up most of the statements on the page. I therefore feel this article does not meet WP:GNG BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator that sources are weak, but one reliable source does confirm an extensive career in TV and occasionally in leading roles. One of the issues in Wikipedia is a very significant bias towards more recent events ( and also towards first world issues) . The filmography here all predates the internet so nothing is likely to be found on web-sites. The significance of her roles and her long association with Grange Hill strongly suggest notability to me. To improve the sources a committed editor may need to trawl through newspapers of the time in a Public Library. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about recentism. However, I don't think any of the roles listed could be described as leading or particularly significant though (IMO), given the lack of any mentions in other coverage of the productions. Having a couple of very minor roles in soap operas is unlikely to qualify as inherently notable? BubbleEngineer (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was a regular in Grange Hill (I am old enough to remember!) but this indicates her playing a significant part in Pride and Prejudice. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She did a great job in a small but important role in the BBC Pride and Prejudice, which was notable and is likely to remain so. I see no reason for Wikipedia to deprive future viewers of information about this actress. See also BFI for some of her other roles. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did add a citation from BBC to verify her role as Anne de Bourgh in Pride and Prejudice. I see she has at least five named roles in significant productions. Therefore, she passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel this is verging on non-notability however Velella makes a valid point her last appearance was in the 90's so keep for that reason. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 28 April 2018 (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.