Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Socha

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, owing to no consensus, although this leaned slightly towards delete. Further discussion of a redirect on the article's talk page might help hone consensus.. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Socha

NN replacement actress in a Broadway musical — Music Maker 5376 13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Doyle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Hunton. It seems to be a major work of musical theatre in historic terms, but just acting in Spring Awakening, even on Broadway, does not confer inherent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 13:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per my comment on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (people): The standard for replacement actors seems quite inconsistent with the standard for athletes, who are notable merely if they "have competed in a fully professional league". Even if one reads "fully professional" in the most restrictive sense of only including the top-level professional leagues, this would still include any rookie or journeyman athlete called up on one or more occasion to play in the place of an injured veteran player. IMHO, an actor who permanently takes over a leading role in a major Broadway production is surely more notable than a rookie player for a Major League Baseball team. There are, after all, many more Major League Baseball players at any given time than there are leading actor/actresses on Broadway and other venues of similar stature. This page, and others for actors in replacement lead roles, should not be deleted unless it is determined that the standard for athletes must be tightened in order to eliminate this obvious inequity. Rhsatrhs (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to change the guidelines; this is to determine whether or not this article satisfies notability. Is your keep vote based upon current guidelines or guidelines you'd like to see changed? — Music Maker 5376 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral as to whether the standard for actors should be changed, but I vote to keep -- for now -- on the grounds that I believe that the article meets basic criteria for presumption of notability: "presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject,", and this presumption should -- temporarily -- over-ride the more specific standard for actors until it is reviewed for consistency with other specific standards (e.g., the standard for athletes). I simply believe it is better to err, temporarily, in favor of keeping information based on the more permissive general standard in order to avoid having two sub-communities of Wikipedia going in radically different directions on notability.Rhsatrhs (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument amounts to "This article fails WP:ENTERTAINER, but should be kept anyway." — Music Maker 5376 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reduce my opinion to that, that is your right. It is also my right to reduce your opinion to "there is zero possibility that the standard needs to evolve in response to the opinions of the Wikipedia community, therefore it should be enforced immediately and without question." But I don't think it's particularly productive for either of us to de-value one another's opinions that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point is that this is a DELETION DISCUSSION, not a discussion of the guideline itself. I understand that you're relatively new to WP, and I'm trying to get you to understand that there are different fora for different discussions. Nothing is likely to be changed in the guideline based upon your argument here. The discussion on THIS table is whether or not to keep Alexandra Socha based upon the guidelines as they currently stand, NOT whether or not the guidline should be altered. — Music Maker 5376 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what qualifies as "relatively new to Wikipedia" in your mind, but I have been an occasional contributor for more than five years. If that's relatively new to you, so be it. I know that this is a DELETION DISCUSSION. My vote is KEEP. I am simultaneously engaging in the discussion of the WP:ENTERTAINER policy in the appropriate forum, and I felt a need to also explain my overall position here. My vote is KEEP here because I believe that it is inappropriate to take actions under the existing policy at this time. Is "DELAY THIS VOTE" a valid vote? That's really what I am saying. Delay not just this vote, but all deletion votes based on WP:ENTERTAINER until the community makes a better effort at rational and consistent notability definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have fewer than 500 edits. That's "relatively new", no matter how long you've been editing. (That's not meant to dismiss your contribution to this discussion or the one at Notability. I'm just saying that 500 edits may not make you terribly conversant on procedure -- not that your opinion should carry less weight.) — Music Maker 5376 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. I tend to limit most of my contributions to certain areas, and I have only rarely participated in policy discussions. I tend to be a pragmatist and consensus-seeker, who understands that WP can not be all things to all people, and I believe that the best policies are ones that encourage participation by those serious enough to do high quality work. Inconsistent application of principles discourages serious participants. Deletion of articles in one area where there happens to be a strong standard for notability, while proliferating them in another area where there is a much looser standard, discourages serious participants. Looking for a middle ground makes sense to me. Allowing this article to stand for a reasonable amount of time, until a middle ground is found or rejected, makes sense to me. Rhsatrhs (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a disparity between Entertainer and Athlete, but this is not the place to figure it out. As for keeping this article until the guidelines are revised, since the AfD process has been begun, tabling the discussion is not really an option, unless more editors think the article should be kept based on current guidelines. If the guidelines are revised and Ms. Socha passes notability at that point, it's not like we're losing a whole wealth of knowledge by deleting the article now. I'm not opposed to re-creation at a later date if she passes Entertainer. — Music Maker 5376 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. I agree that there's an inequity in regard to athletes, but widening the notability standard for other professions isn't the solution. Instead, the notaility standard for athletes should be tightened. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - nice accomplishments for a newbie but still fails Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER#Entertainers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she's a lead actress in what was probably the most acclaimed American stage production of the last year (which, having seen, I feel comfortable saying is utter crap). She doesn't fulfill WP:ENTERTAINER because she didn't have the role first? What kind of logic is that? Ford MF (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And wow, now that I'm looking at it, the Spring Awakening article kinda sucks. But it is appropriately major regardless. Ford MF (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spring Awakening. Probably just about fails the relevant notability guideline at this time with her only major performance being in Spring Awakening. The article can then be easily restarted from the redirect once she has more roles or more significant coverage in reliable sources - at the moment only one of the sources seems to provide significant coverage not the multiple sources required by the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spring Awakening - trivial media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (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.