Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Draper

: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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Stuart Draper]]=

:{{la|Stuart Draper}} ([{{fullurl:Stuart Draper|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Draper}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:{{la|To W.H.}}

Substanceless WP:BIO. Tagged since 9/07 w/o improvement. Article suffers from WP:PUFF. Also nominating related To W.H., where the references are just about entirely WP:SYN. THF (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete - per nom, not that notable. Pyrrhus16 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been linked on the WikiProject Shakespeare talk page. Xover (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Stuart Draper as just notable enough. Have expanded and sourced the article to show notability as a playwright and as an actor. There's more out there. Time for expansion... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep To W.H. as that article has now been expanded and sourced to show individual notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep To W.H. as it is the subject of multiple notable publications. ~~I do not have an opinion on Draper yet.~~ In light of the article's recent expansion that keep should also count for Draper. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: We have two related but different articles here, and both have been markedly expanded, improved, and sourced since being nominated. That editors might opine differently about each one could lead to confusions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep to both. Mr. Schmidt has done a nice job of referencing the articles and I think they now pass the notability bar and clearly demonstrate enough substantial coverage from independent sources to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2009 (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.