Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Abelson


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sophie Abelson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails Notability_(people) notability criteria. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another stub. But while her soap opera work is minor, she also had a lead role in a play which won a major British theatrical award (albeit not in the original production), with significant news coverage inadequately noted in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is more than one text being referred to, and there's one reliable source. Hopefully the authors won't fill this with more plot-cruft. The JPS talk to me  23:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. She had a stand-out, lead role in a play which won a Olivier Award. Mr. Wolfowitz Why do you nominate articles for deletion then vote to keep them?  15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete''' No notability for inclusion in wiki under its policies. Being an actress does not give her grounds for any inclusion. Fails on all criteria and there is little or none sourced material--WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking comments and !vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet. See User:WikiKing2012 MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Stage actress who wins awards and recognition from her peers is notable. Being unsourced or a stub is no reason for deletion, as sources are available for improvement of the article. Just takes a little wiki-love. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we losing sight of the guidelines?
 * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
 * One significant role in a television show
 * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * Nope
 * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
 * Nope
 * Can't see how she meets these criteria, from the article or from when I've searched for details. --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With respects, it is important to not let the trees get in the way of our viewing the forest. I do not know what search parameters you used to see whether or not she meets the governing criteria WP:GNG... but I found a few things...
 * In The Stage, Natalie Anglesey writes "Fortunately young Sophie Abelson bailed them out with a terrific performance as the bubbly, blonde Barbara Windsor. She looks incredibly like the original and her delivery as the giggly starlet is spot on. She not only saved the day, she saved the play." Sound like decent recognition from a reviewer for a notable role in a notable production.
 * In the Manchester Evening News, Alan Hulme writes "The deliberately compact setting of cutaway caravan interior copes with sightline problems in this three-sided auditorium set-up but it restricts physical action. Also, with the exception of Sophie Abelson as Windsor - who gloriously dominates proceedings - the other two leads aren't look-alike enough to suspend disbelief." Sounds like another positive accolade for that notable role in a notable production.
 * In British Theatre Guide, David Chadderton wrote "Sophie Abelson, however, is absolutely superb as Barbara Windsor. She has perfected her walk, her gestures, her laugh and her voice, but this is more than just an impression and she gives a powerful performance."
 * So... the television show you grant, along with positive reviews for powerful stage work, kinda push her over the bar in WP:GNG and WP:ENT for me. Her career is more than just what she has done lately on the telly. The article needs work, but that's a matter for cleanup... and AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And practicing what I preach, I just gave the article a cleanup for style and added the three very nice reviews of her work in theatre. There's much more... for those who look. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - supporting the arguments of all  the keepers above, and especially in  consideration  of the article's current content. It  is certainly  true, however, that  the original  creation  was not  even ready  for  creating  a stub.--Kudpung (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per good arguments above. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (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.