Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Lawson (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Draftify. Discounting some socking, there's a clear consensus here that this is WP:TOOSOON, but scattered support to preserve in non-mainspace, so moving it to draft per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lexi Lawson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We just had this debate less than 4 months ago. The consensus of that debate was a clear delete with 5 editors and the nominator (myself) agreeing that she was not notable enough yet and the only keep !vote coming from the creator, which as the closing admin said was "not based in any policy or guideline". JDDJS (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like I said in the G4 decline rationale, the article is not "substantially identical" enough to qualify for speedy deletion; the deleted article was just the lede sentence and a small table of acting credits; there's significantly more material here. Nevertheless, a basic search isn't finding any real sources to support notability; the roles lift the article above the low low bar of A7 for me, but ultimately I think the issues from the first AfD are still true. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing has changed about this person in the last four months. Topic still fails WP:ENT. Ibadibam (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy - I still don't think this should be a keep, as nothing has changed since the previous consensus reached by, , , , , and myself. But based on the trajectory of Lawson's career, I think it's likely that Lawson will achieve notability in the next few years. And given recent improvements to the article, I'd prefer to hang onto the content as a draft in userspace. I would be happy to host it, unless  would prefer to do so. Ibadibam (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. If she gets several more Broadway credits or becomes part of the original cast for a new Broadway show, she can easily become notable. She's just not there yet. JDDJS (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can agree to this and would be happy to host the article as a draft in user space myself. However, I still believe that the article should be kept published. If it is taken away, she will be the only PRINCIPAL cast member of Hamilton without an article on Wikipedia. It is obvious that she is not completely irrelevant, so including her in Wikipedia only increases the amount of information the search engine can provide to users. MonroeHarless (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC) MonroeHarless (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 03:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * KeepI ran another basic search and added additional sources to the article that proved Lexi Lawson to be notable. According to Notability, a performer is considered notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. In the case of Lexi Lawson, stage performances would be applicable. She is performing as Eliza Schuyler Hamilton in the musical Hamilton and is considered a notable replacement according to the show's wikipedia page. She has also performed in two other national broadway tours. MonroeHarless (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * She is listed on the Hamilton page because she is currently playing the role and took over it from the original performer. As you said, they are notable if they have MULTIPLE roles. She has only had one role on Broadway, which is a replacement, not multiple. Having roles in tours are not generally a major indicator of notability, and even if they were, she only has two tour roles, and one of which is also a replacement. She might be notable eventually, but she is not yet. JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What are we counting as significant roles and notable productions? Looking at Broadway World and her resume, we've got:
 * Hamilton: replacement in a leading role on Broadway
 * In the Heights: replacement in a leading role in first tour
 * RENT: leading role in later tour
 * Fame: leading role in later tour
 * American Idol: passed regional auditions, withdrew before national round
 * TV guest spots, supporting film roles, regional theater productions
 * I'd think that tours are not notable productions. Serving as a replacement on Broadway is minimally significant, but there's only one such credit. And the tv and film stuff doesn't seem notable to me. Ibadibam (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With tours, I think originating a role in the first tour would be somewhat significant; however, none of her roles fall into that category. JDDJS (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an actress myself, I can assure you that tours definitely qualify for a person's notability.MonroeHarless (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Being an actress does not make you specially qualified to judge if other actresses are notable enough for Wikipedia. JDDJS (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * JDDJS (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I never said was specially qualified, you just made a rather abrupt assumption. I'm simply stating that this area is my specialty and offering my point of view. No where in there did I state I was "specially qualified" as you wrongly assumed I meant. 99.119.114.151 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not say that it was your opinion that they were notable. You said "As an actress myself, I can assure you that tours definitely qualify for a person's notability." JDDJS (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * JDDJS (talk) 02 so where in there did I say I was specially qualified? MonroeHarless (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You said "as an actress myself, I can..." You clearly are claiming to be specially qualified, otherwise you would have not bought it up. JDDJS (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (talk) 02 I apologize if I came across in a way that caused you to misinterpret my comments, as this is not the case. I brought it up to present an alternate point of view and stated that I was an actress to present where I was coming from. I am in no way putting myself in authority above anyone else here. However, the topic being debated here is not over this, but rather the notability of Lexi Lawson, so let's get back to discussing that.MonroeHarless (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per her imdb page. She doesn't have a lot, but she has some marks on her resume at the highest levels of her profession, which should count for something. South Nashua (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @South Nashua What are you talking about? Most of the roles on her imdb page aren't even named roles. Her only Broadway role is as a replacement. JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * JDDJS (talk) Yes, she was a replacement. The significance was that she was a part of Hamilton (musical), which can be considered a very large part of 2016's pop culture. If this page is removed, she will be the only principal cast member of this show without a Wikipedia page.MonroeHarless (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, that is not true. Seth Stewart who plays Jefferson/Lafayette and Nicholas Christopher who pays Washington both do not have pages. Second of all, while Hamilton itself is a very large part of current pop culture, that doesn't mean that everybody involved in it is automatically notable. JDDJS (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * JDDJS (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Actually, it is true. Neither of those actors are playing PRINCIPAL cast members, which mean leading roles. Lawson, however, is playing a principal role.99.119.114.151 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added additional information on Lexi Lawson, including her work composing movie score and additional television roles. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There are clearly many cited sources that include information regarding Lawson.99.119.114.151 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a Google News search for her, which yielded 7,290, which sounds impressive. However, going through the sources, you find that almost all of the results are about Hamilton and only briefly mentions her. Out of the ones that are actually about her, most are just press releases about her taking over the role. That just leaves us with an interview with Javier Muñoz on Metro Focus (which I never have even heard of), a puff piece about what she and her co-stars look like out of the show, a brief basic bio of her Broadway.com. and the article about her in the Stir (which while it is a very in depth article about her, but is just one article). That's simply not enough to prove notability. JDDJS (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

JDDJS Funny you say that. You must have forgotten these articles. I found many more, but these were just a few I selected that covered the most information. Songwritersmarketplace.com's in depth interview with her, Women Around Town's marticle and interview with her, her own website http://www.lexilawson.love/, and All American Speakers article on her. MonroeHarless (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Her own website means nothing for notability. Do you have links to the other articles you mentioned? JDDJS (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * JDDJS Her website could serve as reference for her contributions, as long as likely bias is removed. The links are https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Lexi-Lawson/398737, http://www.womanaroundtown.com/sections/woman-around-town/woman-around-town-lexi-lawson-hitting-the-heights, and http://songwritersmarketplace.com/keeping-up-with-lexi-lawson/. I have also found additional articles that I will organize and share shortly. MonroeHarless (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the issue was just providing sources to cite the information in the article, those articles would be enough. However, what we need here are sources to prove notability. These articles are from more obscure websites and do not count as significant media coverage. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll let you guys discuss it. Lawson was in those things. Peripherally maybe, but she was in them and she got a credit and they considered to be productions at the peak of the profession. Good enough for me. South Nashua (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @South Nashua I still don't know what you mean. Tours are not "considered to be productions at the peak of the profession." A production at the peak of a stage actor's profession would be the original cast of a Broadway show, which she has never been a part of. She a small unnamed part in one notable film and she guest starred on one notable TV show. That is nowhere near being the top of her profession. JDDJS (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - for reasons given.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes NACTOR as shown by . Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by NACTOR?MonroeHarless (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NACTOR. Ibadibam (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, use ul or ping if you want to mention another user in your comment. Ibadibam (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No one has presented an enlargement on this page for nearly 48 hours and the majority of users want to keep the article. Can we proceed to conclude this discussion?MonroeHarless (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Per WP:NotEarly AFD's are normally allowed to run for 7 days. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, as articulated in the essay WP:PNSD, a majority does not decide the outcome of an AfD, but rather a consensus formed in harmony with the broader consensus inherent in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This allows administrators to consider the strength of arguments without the potential of being compromised by canvassing. Ibadibam (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP Meets WP:NACTOR, barely. The role in Hamilton is significant and attracts enough of a following of people interested in her previous career as found in reliable sources, making those jobs relevant, too, for our purposes. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin User:MonroeHarless/User:Cannady212, who is the article author and the main voice arguing for this article to be kept has been confirmed by checkuser to be using sockpuppets and has been indefinitely blocked. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Cannady212. User has used one sock to improperly close this AFD. She has used the other sockpuppet to support Draft:Mitchell_Hope becoming an article, despite the fact that it had been rejected several times due to lack of notability. While this does not invalidate any points that she has made during this AFD, closing admin should keep this in mind when making a final decision on what to close this discussion as. JDDJS (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Delete Lexi who? Grammarphile (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy seems like a good solution to me. I just added a couple details with additional sources but agree more is needed--but I also think this is one where it's reasonable to guess we may see more very soon, so with offers on the table to host the draft, I think that's a good route. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Replacement roles do not indicate notability under WP:NACTOR and otherwise falls short of WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently she does not appear to pass WP:GNG (at least through my searches), and she clearly does not pass WP:NACTOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Not currently notable, for the reasons onl5969 states. But there is potential for notability in future. 1292simon (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - This is a borderline case, with the actress attracting some notoriety for her multiple touring performances yet not getting the kind of sustained coverage that a good article needs. I'm somewhat swayed by the arguments to keep this. However, the whole situation seems to be, to put it bluntly, 'too soon'. There are reasonable points made to push this into some kind of draft space or something like that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (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.