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. IMHO, this should have been closed as "speedy keep", given that the previous AfD was already a "keep" and closed just 17 (seventeen!!) days before this one was opened. Randykitty ( talk) 10:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Sophie Hunter

Sophie Hunter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I don't mean to sound like a broken record but I'd really like to get this retried for AfD without the opinion of any socks, as TheVerge24601 was a sock and Fan of the Dames is most likely a sock, just hasn't been blocked yet. These were the arguments from the last AfD:

• "Has substantial other edits" & "article appears to have significant edits by others" - yes the majority of them are socks.
• These were also the sources listed (by a sock) that were considered "significant coverage"
  • [1] Just lists Hunter as the director, article is about the play, not her. mere mention.
  • [2] again, it's about the play, not her. Her name is mentioned ONCE. mere mention
  • [3] She is mentioned once also in the article just mentioning she does the vocals. mere mention
  • [4] AGAIN her name is only mentioned once, only adding that she adds the vocals.

She isn't notable. She fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as it requires

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. She hasn't
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. She doesn't
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She hasn't

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG - doesn't have significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. Numerous references, award winner, easily meets WP:GNG. Socks not a factor in previous AfD discussion. If there is insufficient coverage in any one source, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability as the WP:BASIC rule says, and there are 14 of these sources now (more possible if one includes coverage of her high-profile dating of actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Her views have been quoted in major publications. That she's directed critically-reviewed plays, acted, is a vocalist -- clearly she's notable.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "Socks not a factor in previous AfD discussion"? TheVerge24601, the user you agreed with was a sock. Now blocked. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I am not a sock. Neither is SNUGGUMS nor Wikicology nor Hullaballoo. Closing admin weighed arguments and decided it was a clear keep.

I'm not calling you, snug, wiki or Hulla a sock? You stated that socks weren't a factor in previous AfD when in fact there was sock in the discussion and you agreed with (not knowing they were a sock). LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• • A single award win doesn't make her notable. Mere mentions don't count as significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

What is notable is the huge pattern of her career, directing critically-reviewed plays, theater and film acting, music -- check out the sheer body of her work which you, yourself, expanded in the article.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I expanded what I could after the first nomination result was keep. I figured I might as well make the article look presentable but the more I do the more I am still certain that her notability is weak if not at all. I think if she continues on this path then she'll be more notable but I don't find are all that notable or anything she's done so far notable yet. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, how does one explain huge numbers of pageviews? While of course pageviews is not an official reason for keeping or deleting, in my experience there have been very few articles deleted which get so much attention.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Honestly, the number of page views means nothing to me in terms of notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep more or less per TomWS. Directing a production of a play that's reviewed in major national media like The New York Times is at least a strong indicator of notability. The number of times the director's name may be used (which, btw, the nom miscounts) isn't a key point, and, in the context or a review discussing, inter alia, the director's creative work, categorically cannot be dismissed as "mere mentions". She's won a notable theatrical award, an indication of notability under ANYBIO. She apparently does pass WP:ENTERTAINER for multiple significant roles in notable stage productions. An ongoing jihad to purge Wikipedia of content related to a sockmaster's obsessions may not be as disruptive as the sockmaster's activity, but it can still approach the disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If that's your argument then make an article about the play but not about her. The most of the articles about her aren't about her but about the play. And yes the number of time she's mentioned (sorry if I miscounted, didn't mean to) does count because if the whole article is about her, then it's significant, if it's just a mere mention then it isn't, which fails significant coverage. And again, winning one award doesn't make her notable. How does she pass WP:ENTERTAINER when the majority of her roles are minor if not just extras? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It's simply wrong to argue that coverage of a creative professional's creative work does not contribute to their notability. The number of times the creator's name is dropped is really minimally significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 21:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The previous discussion was closed only two weeks ago and I fail to see a valid reason for its reopening as Sophie Hunter is clearly just as notable now as she was then. I completely agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in that pursuing content deletion solely because it had been contributed by a user subsequently ejected from the project is counterproductive. As for "getting this retried for AfD without the opinion of any socks," I'd like to point out that an opinion neither gains nor loses any validity based on who expresses it. TheVerge24601 might be blocked now, but he certainly contributed positively to the previous discussion, and I don't see why that contribution should be discounted. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (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.