Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 29

Guide to deletion

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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sara Al Hani

Sara Al Hani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched with both the English and Arabic, سارة هاني‎, spellings of her name. J04n(talk page) 23:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• In my view, there's no place on Wikipedia for unsourced BLPs. As such, even though this person does appear to exist as an Arabic singer, per Google books, I believe this article should be deleted. LHM 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: those Google book hits are ripoffs of Wikipedia content. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, my apologies then. I should have looked deeper into those two links. I've struck that portion of my recommendation above. LHM 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone is searching using date of birth, note that the year is among the uncertainties in the article (recently changed by an IP); anyone claiming to win a competition at age 14 in 2001 won't have been born in 1970 anyway. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe her career will blossom - or may have already done so since the 2007 stop-point of this unsourced biography - but as things stand the article is lacking in verifiable demonstration of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Having worked on some Arabic-based musicians before, I was able to dig around and can tell she definitely has some popularity, but perhaps not enough to make the chore of improving this worthwhile. (I searched under "سارة الهاني") I think she has released two albums. [1]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:19, 5 July 2011 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jo Boy Fresh (rapper)

Jo Boy Fresh (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One short interview in musicislifemagazine does not create notability  —SMALLJIM  23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are no Gnews hits for "Jo Boy Fresh", and while that's certainly not the definitive marker of notability/non-notability, it seems clear that, while this rapper is trying to make it big, he's not even close to there yet. As such, I agree with the nominator that rapper is not notable, and that this article should be deleted, without prejudice against re-creation, if this artist ever attains actual notability. LHM 23:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - It's unclear that Music is Life magazine is a reliable source. in any event, it takes more than that to establish notability, and this unsigned rapper does not appear to have any other coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2011 (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.

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 Speedy Delete: G3. FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonny Graham

Sonny Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched his name with 'Emmy', 'KSVN', 'ABC7', and 'ABC' all with no success, could be a hoax. J04n(talk page) 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• In my view, there's no place on Wikipedia for unsourced BLPs. As such, I believe this article should be deleted until and unless reliable sources start covering his "career." LHM 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I find no sources on his name, and searches for the stations he reputedly anchored for having me suspecting a possible hoax as well. KSVN does not appear to be ABC7, and KBD-TV is out of Southfield, MI, not Beaver Dam, KVHS is a radio station, and KVVH doesn't seem to be a station anywhere at all. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  In looking into this further, it does appear that this article is a blatant and obvious hoax. While KSVN exists (it's a low power station, and part of the Azteca Network), there is no evidence that this man works there, more or less that he's an anchor. Stated flatly, this person does not exist at KSVN. I know it's non-standard to speedy tag an article that is at AFD, but this seems like a pretty blatant hoax, and it makes the project look bad, the longer it's kept active. As such, I've tagged it {{db-hoax}}. LHM 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2011 (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.

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 without prejudice. I find that there's no real consensus on the issue of whether or not the subject meets WP:ENT. However, this is a poorly sourced BLP. Therefore, if someone wishes to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken Shiroyama

Ken Shiroyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, long-term unsourced BLP, was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to verify claims of notability here. Additional sources welcomed. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 00:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable career. I find it unlikely anyone sincere doubts any of the information there, but if so then find a copy of something listed and fast forward to the credits. Dream Focus 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Article lacks reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability. I note that the Japanese Wikipedia article is also similarly lacking in sources, which suggests that none is available. --DAJF (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  If the Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced, this does not imply that no sources are available. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --Malkinann (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• They don't require sources there, if the information is without challenge. Different Wikipedias have different rules and suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Commeent The article is sourced, if only with a primary source. I would expect additional sourcing to be available in Japanese. OTOH, there are no major roles and a lot of the listed roles are bit parts. Edward321 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Claude Greengrass was a regular character in the book series that inspired Heartbeat, and lasted for a good long while on the show - longer than Nick Berry's character. Bill Maynard, the originating actor for Greengrass, is described here as having played "Claude Greengrass in Heartbeat among many other big roles". I feel the Claude Greengrass role is a major role. I don't know about Mike Novick, as I haven't watched 24, but Novick lasted for four seasons as a recurring character. --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Errr ... I wonder if the Keep proponents are familiar with WP:BLP; any BLP article lacking reliable sources which discuss the subject in significant detail must be aggressively deleted. I also wonder upon which basis the subject's career is blithely declared "notable," and am interested to hear the rationale.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Probably WP:ENT#1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, a fair point. Where that view gets tricky in my view is that, in ENT#1: "significant" and "notable" in that sentence are things that have to be evidenced in some way by sources as well, due to WP:NRVE. Notability we could infer from sources about the film or television show if there are sources on that. But the significance of a role? I suspect that usually that's going to require much the same sort of things that WP:GNG requires in the way of sourcing. I'm not willing to entirely infer it from "number of episodes", since very minor characters sometimes recur momentarily without reaching significance within a series. I'm sure there's enormous room for disagreement on that point, and I respect that, but I figured it was important to at least address the ENT#1 question, and why, with respect to those who disagree, I felt it hadn't been shown to be reached here. --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mmhmm. I was wondering myself what made a laundry list of minor roles "significant" other than that there's, well, a list of roles, so they must be significant because, well, they must be.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst it is easily possible to have a "significant" voice-only role in an audio-only medium (such as a radio play), I think it would be very difficult to make a compelling argument for a voice-only role in a visual medium (i.e. dubbing, animation, etc) being "significant". Not saying that it'd never happen, just that it'd be an exceptional circumstance (and need some fairly compelling substantiation, per WP:REDFLAG). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: no indication of "significant roles in multiple notable films [etc]", no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (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.

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. Consensus is that a content fork is not needed or, in this form, appropriate.  Sandstein  05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

White flight in the United States

White flight in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was a fork created by copy-paste of portions of White flight before consensus for any such split had been formed on the talk page of that article. No reason was given for separating off this content, the original usage of the term, from the original article and the editing history has been lost. The fork was created by a new account, possibly an alternative account of another user, who has not engaged in discussions of any kind. The term "white flight" was originally applied to migration within the US and has been used more widely since, often in slightly different circumstances. The article duplicates content from White flight, with almost no changes and various inconsistencies resulting as a consequence. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Delete. This article (and the way it was created) is problematic. It is clear that the creator has moved large parts of another article to this new one without discussing the move at all. I am not sure that this, in itself, is reason to delete the new article, but neither is a deletion debate the place to discuss that. As for the article, it is full of original research and not a little POV - but that, too, is not a reason to delete it. Is it possible to delete the article for now, discuss its move at Talk:White flight to get consensus whether a breakup of the article is warranted? Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Delete this article; return discussion to Talk page of White flight. As one of the editors of the original White flight, I thought that the article should be limited to the US (and renamed), as that is where the term historically originated, and issues related to it in the US do not necessarily apply to contemporary situations in other nations. Others think that because journalists have adopted "white flight" in recent decades as a catchy title to apply to any movement of people of European descent, the article should follow them and contain examples of contemporary "white flight" (as named by journalists) worldwide, regardless of causes. The examples included showed that there was ethnic succession going on in cities. There were problems with OR and POV in that article as well, and no consensus had been reached on what to do with the other material.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The topic of White flight in the US certainly warrants its own article alone. I added about 21,000 k of content pretty easily. The after effects of White flight in the US have not even been touched upon as yet (all arguable, mind you) - the effect on US urban growth & planning, transport policy, gated communities, and the link to the rise of US gun ownership as a political/social movement in the US. Lamsfield (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As the creator of the fork, Lamsfield (a) has not seen fit to discuss anything concerning the article on Talk:White flight or any other talk pages and (b) has added original research to the new article, with unsourced claims concerning white flight. Since white flight concerns almost entirely a concept restricted to the United States, the only solution at present seems to be to delete the new article, possibly rename the old one and then discuss where the non-US material might be put, if it is decided that it should be moved. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• delete per WP:FORK Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." It's not clear whether this spinoff has legs or not but, as new material has been added, deletion would be disruptive to further discussion and editing. If merger is the result of such discussion then this action is not performed by deletion and so the material should be kept to allow ordinary editing to take place. Warden (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article White flight concerns the phenomenon in the United States where the term was coined and where it has a precise meaning, as discussed above. The "new material" added on the US in the fork article is all WP:OR.The material has been copy-pasted from other wikipedia articles on demography and interpreted by the editor Lamsfield (talk · contribs) as "white flight". But there is no support for that interpretation from reliable secondary sources. Edits adding that kind of contentious unsourced original research are disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• delete There is no reason this article should be separate from the general article on White Flight which mainly deals with US anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 2 July 2011 (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.

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. BigDom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Wesley Robinson,II

Hugh Wesley Robinson,II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested WP:PRODBLP. Current sources do not indicate notability of the subject or are not independent. Gnews provides no information on the individual. Does not appear to comply with WP:BLP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia guidelines. The article fails good references and reads as a resume. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. I removed references to facebook and myspace. Article seems like an autobiography anyways. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - some of the claims are so outrageous and outlandish, as to be BLP violations. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2011 (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.

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. BigDom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Go – Goa Gone

Go – Goa Gone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable film with no current independent references. Current refs include a cast listing. Does not meet WP:NFILMS I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —   Abhishek   ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While the planned film is beginning to get coverage, it does not yet merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Parhaps in a few months... but not just yet. Fine if author wishes userfication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 June 2011 (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.

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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Masumi Gotō

Masumi Gotō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP of a Japanese voice over actress. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I'd come across this one in the current WP:URBLPR effort and had no luck finding reliable, secondary sources at all. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (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.

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. BigDom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Soufiane AIT

Soufiane AIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without any progress in translation, does not appear to be especially notable, prod declined Jac16888 ^Talk 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Puff piece, plain and simple, barely passes G11 speedy deletion criterion. None of the references are of the kind we deem reliable to establish notability. Not worth the trouble of translating. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would also note that the article is in French and there is no corresponding article in the French Wikipedia, despite his notability such as it is being mainly in the French-speaking world. We might want to offer to transwiki this to the French Wikipedia, see if they consider it notable, and possibly translate at some point if they do, but if not then the case against it seems rather clearcut. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The editor who created it here did so after it was deleted on the French Wikipedia, apparently it doesn't meet their criteria [2]--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, then just delete. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Puffery. I agree about the lack of need for translation (and didn't bother to earlier...). Plenty of refs - I can't see anything worth tuppence there. Peridon (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (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.

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. BigDom 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum

Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD. Unable to verify. References provided are not on-topic. Singularity42 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, hoax or unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

References provided were referring to the processes upon which the state is postulated - other references will be applied as soon as possible. Will include footnotes and references to philosophical/psychological/neuroscientific publications, appropriate reference to moral relativism and the origin of the concept. I begin to realize that i did not fully explain the origin of the theory, which relies on both philosophical and scientific concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Given that this is both nonsensical and has zero hits in Google scholar, this is clearly either a hoax or a misunderstanding. Hairhorn (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Rushkovski, if I follow what you are saying, than I think you are running afoul of Wikipedia's policy against original research. That is, you are using the sources to justify and provide examples of the concept, rather than sources that talk about the concept. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's schrodinger's cat for ideas. I am applying an already existing concept to another.

If you can place a theoretical cat in a theoretical box, why not an idea? The concept does need to be extrapolated, but as any theory, it has to start somewhere. The core concept is that an idea can exist outside of any context, thus neither good not bad, moral or immoral until observed through normal perception. We can suspend normal human perception of morality and context in several ways, and deep meditation can break down the standard subject/object paradigm, thus creating a context-free environment for the exploration of various philosophical or moral topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong. This concept is something you came up with. There are no sources that specificially talk about this concept - at least, none that call it "Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum" or something similar. It is a philisophical axiom that you have conceptualized. If that's the case, then it is WP:Original Research, and cannot be on Wikipedia yet. Singularity42 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• SNOW Delete Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum? More like Theoretical Original Research. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Slam-dunk case for WP:SNOW. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Valid point, it could qualify as OR, though it is something that can be shown to exist, and is derived from already existing concepts. Metzinger talks about how the alteration of the perceptual paradigm in his book, by meditation or otherwise creates dramatic changes in the way the neural centers of the brain fire, and the concept applies directly to the idea that the human mind can, under some conditions, forgo the already existing matrix of patters and experience perception uninterrupted by the preconceived notions and the tunnel vision effect of the human psyche, allowing us to examine existing concepts in a new light. On a side note, is there a specific philosophical wiki I might be referred to? (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011

Sorry, but "Grinko-Hyde Paradigm"? who is Grinko? Who is Hyde? You call it a "paradigm", a "hypothesis" and a "thought experiment"; which is it? This isn't OR as much as it is completely invented. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete, appears to violate WP:V and WP:OR, and is possibly a hoax. If the article actually says anything that is sourceable, I'm not seeing it. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I have reached the crux of the problem. Anyone out there want to start a wiki on experimental philosophy? The theory is verifiable, but it does smack of OR - the name gives that away. If this is taken down, does it all get deleted or does it stay under my page so that I can work on it? I see no reason to fight this fight until I've compiled a lot more info, and I clearly rushed into the "quick, post it on wikipedia, it's not there yet" side of things without preparing the article first. Not hoaxing though, too much <3 for wikipedia to troll it. Just take her down, until, one day, she may be ready. (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin In the above comment, the only editor of the article, Rushkovski has requested the article be deleted and to have it userified (though I understand this might have to be done in undeletion / deletion review?) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is already a version in userspace at User:Rushkovski/Theoretical conceptual vacuum. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:BULLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (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.

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, based upon the discussion below. There is rough consensus that the coverage meets neither the general inclusion guide nor the inclusion guidelines for actors. The key element were that the sources have significant coverage of the article's subject.

There was some debate as to who stage actors may be a poor fit for the existing guidelines, however it was not sufficient to override the typically accepted encyclopedia-wide standards.

As usual, of course, deleted material can be requested via the restoration process, or simply by asking most administrators.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Susan Wands

Susan Wands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Main editor of article's name may indicate WP:COI. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This listing notes an American Actor of interest, with a substantial body of work. The references include reviews and listings from the New York Times, Playbill, Broadwayworld.com, and Theatre World. This work is of interest to the theatre community, and audiences. Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep A proper re-write is called for here, not removal. I've done a cursory check, and there is information out there regarding this subject. Actresses like Susan Wands have a long trail of reviews and even articles written, sometimes, over many years. Such is the case here. Subject is notable. Evalpor (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: By all means re-write the article if you have managed to track down any genuinely notable material but, with the copious number of refs/links already listed in the article, it's odd that there is little or nothing of note amongst them. The article is not about "actresses like" the subject, it is specifically about the subject and unless there is material about that very individual, they are not notable. Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced? I've no reason to disbelieve that Susan Wands is a fine jobbing actress but that alone is not sufficient to make her suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Doddy Wuid (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would champion that this subject is notable and the Wiki article is appropriate. This Wiki article isn't just a "long trail of reviews and articles" about this actress, but her involvement in new scripts Off-Broadway and in regional theater for the last 20 years make her a notable Wiki entry. Her work cites productions with such playwrights as Horton Foote, Alex Timbers, Mario Fratti (librettist for the musical Nine), Mark St. Germain (Susan is featured in the premiere of his play The Best of Enemies at Barrington Stage (directed by artistic director Julianne Boyd)), and Andrea Stolowitz. Included in this article are important (new/premier works) American theatrical productions with the Joseph Papp Shakespare Theare in NYC, the Circle in the Square Theatre, La Mama Theatre, Primary Stages, and Ars Nova Theatre. My point being, it's not just her work that is being cited on this Wiki article, its the work of new American playwrights and productions. If the article needs to be rewritten to focus on that, I'll be glad to rewrite it.

Cwands (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: That Susan Wands has participated in these works, even if notable, or with these persons, even if notable, does not in itself make her notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Only significant coverage of the subject itself can endow notability on it and this "means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (my emphasis). The sources may mention her but largely only in cast lists or in brief mentions in articles regarding all aspects of a production or some other wider topic. Also, regarding the potential COI aspect, can you clarify if you are Susan Wands twin sister Cynthia, mentioned on SW's web site, linked from the article? Hardly the "impartial party" you claim on the talk page.Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am related to the subject, and I have made no effort to disguise that. I believe I am an impartial and competent Wiki contributor, having helped to contribue to two other pages. I must also point out per this subject's body of work is substantial and important to the developing of new scripts in the American theatre, not just her roles and her body of work, but the scope of work encompassed by the reviews and articles that have been written about her work in The New York Times, Playbill, Variety and other important venues. Per your request: Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced?

1. New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008 [3]
2. Variety, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [4]
3. Talking Broadway, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [5]
4. Backstage, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [6]
5. Theatrescene, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [7]
6. Theatremania, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 2008 [8]
7. New York Times, Review of Henry IV, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [9]
8. BroadwayWorld.com, Article Henry IV, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [10]
9. Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Henry VI, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [11]
10. New York Times, Review of "The Belle Strategem", featuring Susan Wands, October 2003 [12]
11. New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson", starring Susan Wands [13]
12. Talking Broadway, Review of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [14]
13. Riverfront Times, Reivew of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [15]
14. Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Passionate Women, La Mama Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands [16]
15. New York Times, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [17]
16. Variety, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [18]
17. The Record Review, Leaving Iowa, Adirondack Theater Festival, starring Susan Wands, 1994 [19]
18. Old Globe Press Release, Knowing Cairo, Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, starring Susan Wands 2003 [20]

I strongly believe that this is a valid Wiki page subjectg and should be included in the Wikipedia.

Cwands (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Those that I have checked do at least mention her by name but there is little in the way of "directly in detail", particularly the "detail" aspect. Doddy Wuid (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you are now requiring a list all of the reviews for this subject, with all the details citing the subject, in order to justify this subject's Wiki article, then I will add then per your request - but I would like to ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid to make this determination as to the relisting/approval of this Wiki article, as I can only surmise that this reviewer has a bias towards this subject or body of work.

Per the detail for performance for Susan Wands in the Arena Stage production of "A Streetcar Named Desire" (which is not one of the original premier works that is the focus of this body of work):

http://www.cercles.com/n10/londre.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

“Susan Wands gave a fascinating, strong interpretation of Blanche. Insanity is clearly closing in on this woman, but unlike the traditional fragile interpretation, Miss Wands’ Blanche is going down fighting” [Plyler]. Another critic found Susan Wands’s performance as Blanche Taut with the psychological complexity and ambiguity that Williams wrote into a part that is, some say (and this includes Williams), based on the playwright’s own unfathomable personality. She slowly, gently and affectingly dismantles the thin veneer of reality that props up Blanche’s world, always keeping one step ahead of our perceptions. It is a moving interpretation, far and away superior to the usual fluttery Blanche [...]. Wands conveys the redemptive idea that here is a woman once made of solid human stuff still clinging to her self- awareness. The slight quavers in her voice, the startled screams, an excessive gesture, the decorative laughs—by these things Wands gradually reveals a lapsing mind. She knows she is doomed, but she wants to be sane enough to observe her fall. In the end, she isn’t. That’s her tragedy. [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]

In general, the critics concurred that “audiences will find it easier to relate to Susan Wands’ less-fragile Blanche” [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

More detailed references to be added soon.

Cwands (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2. "Boom" Talking Broadway.com review:

For a rare example of a storyteller more interesting than the tale being told, you need look no further than Ars Nova. But let the record state that the most fascinating feature of the play that just opened there, titled Boom, is not its playwright, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, but someone named Barbara. Bearing a bobbed shock of copper hair and wearing a slightly revealing, slightly frumpy black suit, Barbara (deliciously played by Susan Wands) looks like a cross between a schoolteacher and a just-past-her-prime 1960s flight attendant. She moves and speaks purposefully but haltingly; her habit of substituting gestures for certain words suggests someone for whom long-held intentions are being allowed escape for the first time. Yet her obvious discomfort is anything but uncomfortable. Positioned at an antiquated console equipped with an obtuse collection of levers, switches, and percussion instruments (including a tympani), Barbara radiates the self-involved joy of a woman completely in her element. You never doubt her certainty about anything, even when it seems that the people and buildings surrounding her are on considerably shakier ground. In a play tracking the tremors of change, a guide such as this is crucial to maintaining your own footing. But whenever Barbara starts throwing those levers and banging on her giant drum with the pompous intent of an epic film soundtrack, the work she's doing always seems more worthwhile than the work she's creating. It's only in Barbara, and in the sparkling, outmoded sophistication Wands brings to her, that the at-odds halves of the story meld into one. As the play evolves, and as the depths of Barbara's personal connection to her presentation grows less murky, it becomes less shallow and much more appealing. And once Nachtrieb stops relying on Armageddon clichés just past the 90-minute evening's midpoint, his play even begins to assume a surprising celestial beauty.

The most startling part of this is that Boom legitimately earns it, its gradual ebb and flow becoming by show's end a wave of cleverness that at least leaves you with the impression of a show of some significance. That too many involved haven't figure out how to bring that quality to the rest of the show is unfortunate; that Barbara and Wands almost succeed in picking up the slack is its own small, explosive blessing.

Talking Broadway Review of Boom

Cwands (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 

3. New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson",

The central figure in Jim Leonard Jr.'s play is Elizabeth Ann Willow, a young victim of cerebral palsy (Susan Wands in a wheelchair and braces). Why Elizabeth Ann stopped speaking in her mid-20's is the question the play asks and, in a manner of speaking, answers. The heroine makes it plain that she aspires to soar, but she gets no help from anyone, including the playwright.

New York Times Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson"

Cwands (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

4. Variety Review: "Talking Pictures",

Like many of his plays, Foote's "Talking Pictures" is set in the fictional town of Harrison, Texas, during a time of transition. Harrison has a lot in common with Brian Friel's Ballybeg: It's a point of return, a touchstone, a field of the imagination on which an author has played out all his fancies. Nothing happens and everything happens, usually within the span of a few days. Foote is congenitally more upbeat than Friel, but isn't that the American virus? "Talking Pictures" is set in 1929, when silent movies are about to give over in a big way to talkies and the change is generating an almost sexual anticipation in small towns like Harrison....

Susan Wands is quite perfect as Willis' pouty gold-digger wife, Gladys.

[[ http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117909051?refcatid=31%7CVariety Review of "Talking Pictures"]]

Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

5. The Record Review : "Leaving Iowa",

At its heart, "Leaving Iowa" is a 90-minute intermissionless play that takes two hours and 15-minutes to complete (including a long intermission).

Susan Wands is also terrific as the June Cleaver mom who shows infinite patience, until she is pushed too far.

[[ http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/07/23/entertainment/doc4a6777fe52c51057808214.txt%7CTroy Record review of "Leaving Iowa"]]

Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cwands (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

6. UT Daily Beacon, Review, Triumph of Love:

These “attempts” include multiple accounts of cross-dressing that lead ...... (Susan Wands) to fall in love with Leonide’s different incarnations. Susan Wands as Leontine, Agis’ sister, also enchants. We are convinced more of her love than any of the other characters’, but the way her character arc ends is fairly strange (we actually wonder if she is still in love with Leonide even after Leonide’s true identity is revealed). utdailybeacon.com/.../triumph-provides-enjoyable-complex-story/ -

Cwands (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

7. TNJN, Triumph of Love:

And Susan Wands stole the show with her brilliant portrayal of Leontine. The youthful transformation that she showed in Leontine was both exciting and inspiring, leaving the audience satisfied in its honesty. Cwands (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

8. Talking Broadway Review, Henry VI:

...and Susan Wands as the emperor’s one-time lover – and just perhaps the mother of his child – handles her end of the often absurd confrontations with great aplomb.

[[ http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/stl/stl26.html%7CTalkinbroadway review of "Henry IV"]]

Cwands (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cwands (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.67.185.194.103 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.97.94.118.132 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Evalpor and evidence (poorly) presented. To the contributor, please read WP:SOCK. Just in case. Moray An Par (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in resolving this issue. Please let me know if there are any changes I need to make to this article to make it more "Wikified" Cwands (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep this seems like a barely notable performer. She is has one credit in Internet Broadway Database, and that is for an understudy role. The article was obviously written by her or a relative. --rogerd (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Her sister isn't doing her any favors here, but the performer clear meets the GNG, as a straightforward Gnews search shows; more than enough coverage in the NY Times alone. The list of directors who've cast isn't exactly shabby, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question. Assuming you are meaning a search in Google News, I'm puzzled by this as I get only two hits for the term "Susan Wands" and these are just name checks, along with others, in lists of the cast of one production; hardly "directly in detail". Perhaps it's filtered differently because I'm not in the U.S. but I am searching the U.S. region news. What term are you using in your "straightforward Gnews search"? Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Answer. You're looking only at the results for the last 30 days. Click on the "Archives" link at the left side of the page to get more complete results, which run back over nearly 30 years. And even more reviews turn up in the GBooks search. And, this being an area where googling gives nothing like complete results, we're looking at only part of the iceberg. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. That said - well Ravenswing nails it pretty solidly below. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: The NY Times, Variety and Playbill are certainly reliable sources, but not a single damn source either in the article or in the laundry list posted above discuss Wands in pretty much any detail, let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Her name is mentioned in articles mentioning several other actors, and that's about it. Quite aside from the probable WP:COI issue, the Keep proponents seem bedazzled by "OMG look, a list of SOURCES!!!!" without actually examining those sources to see if they mention the subject in significant detail. I've yet to examine one that does. WP:GNG explicitly states that a sentence or two constitutes a trivial mention, and few of these sources devote as much as a single sentence to Ms. Wands.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, that's not an accurate assessment of what's out there; for example, there's a full-length profile here [21], for example. And there's a lot of material behind paywalls in the GNews search. Second, the argument fundamentally misunderstands notability. Wands is notable as an actor because there are dozens of sources discussing her work as an actor. The GNG certainly does not say what you would have it say; A single one-sentence mention of a tangential subject in a full-length book may be trivial, but that is not the standard to be applied to the assessment of a cast member's performance in a review of a play, where the matter is essential to the review as a whole and space is far more limited. Aside from the GNews hits, there are many more that show up in GBooks (quite a few magazine reviews that Google has decided to index as "Books" rather than "News"). And Wands is notable as an actor, and the sources directly address her work as an actor. Perhaps she'd get more spectacular coverage in the New York Post and in TMZ if she were prone to embarassing public behavior, romantic escapades, and the occasional round of overt substance abuse, but there's more to the acting world than Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. If Martin Scorsese casts her in Boardwalk Empire, if Joanne Akalaitis casts her in the New York Shakespeare Festival, if Newsweek reports that "the Imogen of neophyte actress Susan Wands full of an inner radiance that elevates the play beyond its merits"[22] and if a reference work held by many academic libraries devotes space to analyzing her performance as Stella in a performance of Streetcar [23] then she's clearly a legitimate encyclopedic subject, even if we don't know much about her sex life, her dietary opinions, her pets, her favorite sports teams, and all the other trivia that infests our biographies of semi-celebrities. WP:BLP says that when we write about noncelebrities, we should "include only material relevant to their notability", which in the case of an actor is his or her work, and it should be clear from reviewing the sources that this actor's work is well documented in reliable sources, and that demonstrates notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we stick to the dearth of detailed material about her work rather than peripheral aspects of her life, that nobody else has expressed any interest in, despite your implication? Again, WP:NOTINHERITED. Being employed by someone notable and/or in something notable does not in itself make someone notable. If there is, however, significant, detailed and direct coverage of her contribution to Boardwalk Empire or the New York Shakespeare Festival, that, of course, is a different matter and I'm perfectly happy if that's the case (I'd freely admit you seem to be better at rooting out material with Google, so go for your life). Likewise with being covered(/briefly mentioned) in a notable publication: reliable but not necessarily notable. A detailed profile in 28 years is something and a mountain of brief direct mentions in despatches, some clearly positive, indicate she may well be a capable jobbing actress but in few, if any, of these examples can it be said to be "significant coverage". Doddy Wuid (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have to object to the representation that the body of work reviewed cited in:

#New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008 [24]

1. Variety, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [25]
2. Talking Broadway, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [26]
3. Backstage, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [27]
4. Theatrescene, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [28]
5. Theatremania, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 2008 [29]
6. New York Times, Review of Henry IV, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [30]
7. BroadwayWorld.com, Article Henry IV, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [31]
8. Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Henry VI, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [32]
9. New York Times, Review of "The Belle Strategem", featuring Susan Wands, October 2003 [33]
10. New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson", starring Susan Wands [34]
11. Talking Broadway, Review of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [35]
12. Riverfront Times, Reivew of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [36]
13. Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Passionate Women, La Mama Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands [37]
14. New York Times, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [38]
15. Variety, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [39]
16. The Record Review, Leaving Iowa, Adirondack Theater Festival, starring Susan Wands, 1994 [40]
17. Old Globe Press Release, Knowing Cairo, Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, starring Susan Wands 2003 [41]

does represent a notable contribution to American theatre, regional and Off-Broadway credits, and despite the attempt to negate the accomplishments of this performer, this article is of value. The reviewer Doddy Wuid seems to have a personal agenda against this performer - as his continued objections to this listing seem completely subjective. Although this actress is not a celebrity, her contributions to the curent American theatre, especially in new scripts and productions is notable. Just because Doddy Wuid can't see the value in that does not mean that her Wiki identity is not notable. Can I just ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid review this relisted article, as I don't believe his claims are creditable. Cwands (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That really takes the biscuit! The one person in this debate who does have a clear and demonstrable COI, despite being very slow to make the fact known, accuses someone else of having a personal agenda! Read WP:AGF. There is nothing personal about this as I had been unaware of Susan Wands until I chanced upon the article (and this is not a dig at her profile or notability). This is purely about the article and its notability. There are others who are on the keep side of the debate who, though I may disagree with their conclusions, are applying valid points of policy to the debate, some of whom have pointed out the damage which you are doing to the case by your interventions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep or userfy - I see some kernel of notability, but it is such a mess that it may need a substantial re-write from PR to encyclopedic content. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The analysis of the available sources by other veteran editors as tangential appears persuasive. While a case for borderline notability might be made, the history of the article indicates that it will likely continue to be misused for promotional purposes, and under these circumstances it's not worth the effort of maintaining it and keeping it spam-free.  Sandstein  05:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet any section of WP:NACTOR, and I'm not persuaded by the arguments of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz the page meets general notability. If kept it certainly needs cleanup. The 1983 full-length profile linked is the only source out of the lot which meets "directly" and "detailed", and is from subject's hometown paper. As pointed out above, the quantity of sources doesn't excuse the poor quality of the sources. Per WP:RECENTISM, I believe if this were about an historical actor we'd be applying a different standard of sourcing (stressing WP:ENT over WP:GNG), and deleting this page. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. How does she not pass NACTOR #1, with significant roles in Boardwalk Empire, the Public Theater/NY Shakespeare Festival, and other notable stage productions reviewed in major media like the NYTimes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound disrespectful to the page subject or the page creator. Doing work you love and you're proud of is a rare accomplishment. But to respond to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Significant? Doll Tearsheet in Henry IV is a significant role? Understudy to the female cast as the ONLY Broadway credit? Mrs. O'Neill (2 episodes) in Boardwalk Empire? This is a very low bar for the modifier "significant" when applied to the noun "role". Right now I'm not seeing significant as it regards encyclopedia pages. This page is about a fine working actor but the subject hasn't seen the media resonance yet to pass notability, IMHO. Virtually nothing salient. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• BusterD, it's Pirandello's Henry IV, not Shakespeare's; Matilda is a huge role. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Matilda is a significant role in Pirandello's Henry IV (in St. Louis), but I was referring to the claimed Joanne Akalaitis credit: Doll in Shakespeare's Henry IV, parts I & II. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, got it. Didn't even see that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Significant" here as opposed to "trivial", which has been the standing interpretation. And roles which are discussed in NYTimes reviews of the production are generally significant, even by stricter standards. I'm completely baffled by why there's such pressure to set the bar high under WP:ENT for actors doing significant work, but low for T&A performers, Kardashian hangers-on, and others of no genuine achievement. It's ridiculous that it's harder to keep articles on "fine working actors" with multiple reviews in national media than to remove articles on porn performers with tinplate handed-out-by-the bushel awards.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• As I commented below, the notability guidelines for actors really aren't equipped to deal with stage actors - on the one hand, the productions are notable and she has significant roles in them, but on the other hand, the number of stage actors for which this is true is exponentially larger than the number of film actors for which it is true - is every actor who's had a couple of leads or secondary roles in regional theatre notable? I've begun a discussion at the talkpage for WP:notability (people). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Part of the problem is that WP:ENT is really not set up to deal with stage actors. If Boom and Henry IV had been filmed, it would have been obvious that Wands was notable, but the notability guideline doesn't give adequate instruction for how to deal with plays, which have many performance with many actors, rather than films. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reply Another part of the problem is that many theater actors with better resumes and more significant accomplishments don't meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG either. BusterD (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I believe my above comment is slightly flip, however accurate. I didn't intend to sound sarcastic in such a serious matter. I wanted to acknowledge the point User:Roscelese makes above. Theater is a live experience which isn't processed simultaneously across the country like a film or recording; it is an immediate immersive experience which takes place in the here and now. As a result, all theater criticism is local. Some local theater criticism is good; the newspapers I threw as a child had truly awful theater criticism inside. No matter the variation, local sources don't generally make the best sources for this encyclopedia, except for major market work (New York, Chicago, LA, a small number of regionals). This definitely puts the working stage performer at a disadvantage when compared to the trivial hijinks which might gain the film or TV actor additional media coverage. Nonetheless, balancing such coverage is not why we're assembled here. We're here to decide whether this page meets standards of notability and verifiability. I stand by by my assessment above. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Response. So why are you dismissing the Newsweek review and the academic reference sources I pointed out? And doesn't the Newsweek review itself rather undermine your argument that "a;; theater criticism is local"? To say nothing of the fact that the NYTimes rather frequently reviews British theater (and even theatre). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reply I'll concede the subject's name is mentioned once in both sources, but both sources together don't constitute two full sentences. I'll concede that national magazines occasionally publish local theater reviews, usually coming from the major markets I listed, plus West End. I've looked at the provided sources and I don't see any reason to change my position. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is promotional and reads like a theatre resume with no dates and no balanced treatment of the subject, rather than a biography. When was she born? Where was she raised and educated? Who are her parents and siblings? Did she do any other jobs before acting? Look at, say, Bernadette Peters, for an idea of how to write a bio article for an actress. When an article is written by a person with a WP:COI it makes it harder to write a balanced bio. There should be quotations from both positive and negative reviews of the actresses work in major productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)