Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Doyle

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 delete. ➪HiDrNick! 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Doyle[edit]

Article is regarding a non-notable replacement actor in a Broadway musical. — Music Maker 5376 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This young actor has not had a notable career yet. Someday he may warrant an article, but not at present. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. All of the actors in the Broadway production of Spring Awakening are inherently notable. His role in the top show in the top theater district in the world is enough to make him notable. Qworty (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must have missed WP:REPLACEMENTACTORSONBROADWAYAREINHERENTLYNOTABLE. Original cast are notable. Original understudies are not. Once he originates a role, he may be notable. — Music Maker 5376 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't just any play, and this isn't just any Broadway show. The thing has won 8 Tonys. And this actor isn't just an understudy anymore--he's a full cast member now. To have a role in one of the top plays on the planet certainly spells notability. And this talented young actor now has over 30,000 Google hits [1] Qworty (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revise that Google search. "Matt Doyle" is not an unusual name and many of those hits appear to refer to other people with the same name. I am not taking a position yet as to whether this Matt Doyle is notable enough for an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment Wow. First, googlehits mean nothing. Second, once you discount the countless other people named "Matt Doyle", his number drops dramatically. Third, your argument would imply that every single person who's played Jellylorum in Cats deserves an article. — Music Maker 5376 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) By doing a combined Google search of "Matt Doyle" and "Spring Awakening," you still managed to come up with over 2000 hits. Google hits are never conclusive in terms of WP notability, but they are routinely used as evidence of lack of notability in AfDs when there are only 30 or 40 hits. That is clearly not the case here--there is some very real notability going on. I really don't know why Cats has been brought up, as there really is no comparison. Matt Doyle is starring in the most important Broadway production to come along in a generation, perhaps in several generations. For a young stage actor, landing a part in Spring Awakening is the height of achievement available today, and that is what Doyle has achieved--how can that possibly be considered non-notable? To be at the very top of an industry is always notable. Spring Awakening is a paradigm-exploding work of genius that synthesizes genres, modes, and distinct fields of art in ways that have never been achieved before in the history of the theatre. Cats, on the other hand, was third-rate T.S. Eliot severely watered-down for the public consumption by tourists of furry and facile cartoon creatures. Comparing the cast of Spring Awakening to the cast of Cats is like comparing the crew of Apollo 11 to the Hawaiian-shirted passengers of a Greyhound bus. Clearly, there is a lot more to say about all of this, but it probably won't be necessary to say all of it. Qworty (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep. I cannot believe there is question as to whether or not this should be deleted. His popularity is HIGH and very notable as a young broadway actor. He has only been playing the role of Hanschen for a month and already has been nominated for a Broadway.com audience award for best male replacement against the likes of Mario Lopez, Bob Saget, and Clay Aiken. The only actor in that category that didn't originally come form film or tv! See [Broadway.com] If that isn't a popularity contest...I don't know what is. Plus that's over EVERY other broadway replacement...so don't compare him to a dancer joining the company of cats ten years into it's run. That's absurd. He has a notable career in musical theatre and Broadway. He is one of the most talked about young actors on the broadway stage right now. His work in Bare the album alone should warrent him notable. The album has already been hugely successful and a cult phenomenon and they have yet to distribute it through any other source but their website. (They claim to have sold 32,000 already) He sings on 27 of the 36 tracks as the lead. And yes, he may have been an understudy at first, but he is more talked about than MANY of the original company members. Just search his name on the broadway world. See [Broadwayworld.com] He has several videos of interviews on websites like Broadway world. Maybe when he was just starting out it would have been silly to create a wikipedia on him...but now it's silly not to have one on him. It may not seem like he is notable just because he's not on television or in film...but to the New York theatre circle, most people know his name. The article is currently poorly written but people will add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.121 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) — 74.66.13.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment His actual number of google hits is 251. — Music Maker 5376 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a start to a career, hopefully a long and prosperous one, but one replacement role is not by itself a claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it's the start of a career, but it's clear that his career is already notable enough for a wikipedia article. People look for information on that cast all the time. Especially him. If all of the original cast members have articles he certainly deserves one due to his popularity. By broadway standards, due to the kind of show he is in and the work he does outside of the show already, he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.121 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is certainly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER: Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions and Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Being in the cast of Spring Awakening is certainly a significant role by any definition--this is the height of Broadway. His singing on the Bare album qualifies him as having been featured in the arts multiple times. And if that weren't enough, he performed at the Tonys in front of an audience of 5000 people, as well as a television audience numbering in the millions. Every young actor out there is ready to kill for a role in Spring Awakening, and this is one of the actors who actually made it. Finally, it cannot be denied that he has an immense fan base that goes beyond a "cult following." But even if you want to reduce it to a cult following, the unprecedented cultural phenomenon of Spring Awakening, which reaches all the way down into coffee mugs and T-shirts and ringtones and tattoos, certainly qualifies as an ever-expanding "cult," in which every single player is immediately awarded cult status. In fact, we should be expanding the number of articles relating to Spring Awakening, not cutting them back. All of the participants should have their own articles, there should be articles for the national tour, each of the key songs, all of the major characters, the Grammy-award winning album, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that Spring Awakening is somehow more notable than anything else that has ever played in any theatre anywhere on the planet and that this uber-notability somehow confers upon everyone and everything ever associated with the show instantaneous and everlasting notability. You could not be more wrong. That argument amounts to inheritability. Spring Awakening is certainly no more notable than Cats. While the latter has become a punchline, it played for 18 years. In those 18 years, COUNTLESS dancers took the role of Jellylorum. If, in 18 years, Spring Awakening is still playing (which, mark my words, it won't be....), should the guy playing Hanschen have an article? If he's had a lot of success otherwise, yes. But our dear friend Matt Doyle has appeared on one album (of which 32,000 copies sold is laughable), and has attained one replacement supporting role in a Broadway show. That's not a career. That's a ca-. He's not even playing a lead. He's playing a bit part that sings, what?, one verse in one song? Not, by any stretch of the imagination, notable. — Music Maker 5376 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanschen is a principal role. Period. He doesn't sing one verse in one song. The character is sings in almost all of the shows songs. He has a solo song in the second act and all of 'My Junk' centers around him. That's two songs...and by equity rules, that's a principal role...not a "bit" one. But not only that, the character is recognized more for the amount of scenes he is involved in. And don't call 32,000 laughable...that more that reaches cult status. This is the broadway scene we're talking about here. Hedwig and the Angry Inch has sold about 40,000 over it's many years out on the market and you would certainly say that show has a cult following. This actor has already done more than a lot of the original company members. You seem to have negative feelings towards this for all the wrong reasons. This whole cats comparison is a very bad one. He's not a dancer 18 years into the show. He is the first replacement to a principal character...BUT it shouldn't be about Cats vs. Spring Awakening (which is really funny by the way), it's more his general involvement in the broadway scene that should make him notable. At events he sings with the likes of broadway vets John Lloyd Young and Kerry Butler [broadwayworld.com]. AND AGAIN... People would not have voted for him in the Best Male Replacement category on broadway.com if he wasn't notable or only had a bit role. In it, he is the only person not to come from film or TV...the only one who doesn't appear to be stunt casting. Matt Doyle is a notable young performer and this just shouldn't be deleted. He meets the WP:ENTERTAINER: as much as any of the original cast members...(and he was one himself...just off-stage). His career is new and just starting out but he's notable and popular in the broadway community. Let there be a simple article on him. People look him up and talk about him enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.121 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were an actual equity rule, he only sings one solo verse. Of a reprise. But you're right, he does sing in all of the other songs. Why? BECAUSE HE'S A CHORUS ROLE. — Music Maker 5376 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete at present the article doesn't attempt to establish notability through reliable 3rd party sources. Regardless of the play/musicals notability/popularity/etc and/or whether comparisions to other HUGE Broadway hits are appropriate. The WP:ENTERTAINER criteria doesn't appear to be asserted within the context of the article. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of those wishing "keep" to show reasonable basis for inclusion. I wouldn't be adverse to article creation using reliable 3rd party sources which expand the nature of the actors career and show his notability in the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment according to this [2]he has performed in 3 plays and the only "Matt Doyle at IMDB is a character. I don't think this really counts as "multiple" in the spirit of WP:ENTERTAINER. The issue still stems around reliable 3rd party sourcing of his notability. The article doesn't have any. please 74.66.13.121, if you are so passionate about it work on getting the article up to scratch instead of saying the same things over and over again. Put some references into the article. And if you are Qworty please remember to sign your posts. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absence of reliable third-party sources. I was able to find practically nothing in Google News. Fails WP:N, and little potential for WP:V. Jakew (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all the reasonable evidence Qworty offers, all of which I agree with. Highly notable. 72.240.22.100 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)— 72.240.22.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now fully cited. Bilby and I have been working to cite the article, and there is now no doubt that it satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Multiple accomplishments are now fully referenced. The naysayers here should reconsider their commentary. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You have added citations, and your work is appreciated. But there are still only two facts in the article upon which notability is asserted. 1) Doyle is performing in his first Broadway show and has become a cast replacement for a minor character. He is also understudying a major character, which he played for two performances. The fact that he performed in a musical number with the same cast on the Tony Awards broadcast is not an additional credit - it's the same credit, just at a different location. There is no assertion that he has any other notable professional acting credits. 2) He is heard on a web-published album, Bare. There are thousands of Broadway and West End musicals, and tens of thousands of actors who have appeared in them. Doyle has not won a Tony or any other major acting award. I hope he has a very successful career, but he is not yet notable under the criteria established at WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions; Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Doyle does not satisfy these criteria yet. If you like Spring Awakening, you can help out there by adding references to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would seem to me that if those truly passionate about this actor and keeping this article could write more than one paragraph about him, expand the article into, well, an article, then it would be worth keeping. But if even those who are so keen on keeping his presence on Wikipedia can't find anything else to say about him within the wikipedia guidelines, then there's just not enough to warrant an article yet so should be deleted. Once he's left Spring Awakening and done more of note, then his article could be revived? To most wikipedia readers, Spring Awakening is not the most important piece of culture in the 21st century. Belle pullman (talk) 10:45, 23 May 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.