Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Hunter


 * 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, adequate sourcing has been provided to warrant an article (non-admin closure)  Snuggums  ( talk  /  edits ) 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Hunter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was created by a sock of User:Fairyspit who was banned on April 7, 2014‎, the article was created September 13, 2014‎, clearly AFTER Fairyspit was banned. This is grounds for speedy delete WP:G5 but the tag kept getting removed by IPs and by another user and finally was denied after saying the article was created prior to the ban but as you can see...it wasn't. This has nothing to do with notability, this has everything to do with the fact that allowing this article to be kept is allowing the socks to get away with this behavior. Having dealt with these socks for a while, they have an irrational obsessive behavior towards Benedict Cumberbatch and will create articles solely to link it to it, Blacks Club, Lyndsey Turner, and now Sophie Hunter (because she is Cumberbatch's current girlfriend). In regards to Lyndsey Turner, it got so bad that Turner contacted the OPMS team and told them that because of the socks stalkerish and obsessive behavior, she didn't want a Wikipedia page about her. This article should not be kept. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, most likely including socks, as well as several legitimate editors. WP:Banning policy "does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the Boston Globe an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the Boston Globe was unreliable, I said the peerage was unreliable. The IP added back a whole slew of information that was removed for a reason, the Boston Globe was an innocent bystander. This is about Sophie Hunter not about the SPI, and I don't know how Exec8 got on the list, but that's not what we are discussing. I request you stick to the topic at hand. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Images can be un-deleted mind you... LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to the whole sock thing, she doesn't seem that notable either. The majority of her acting career includes roles like "The Girlfriend", and "Witch". She hasn't occured in more than one episode in a series and hasn't done anything significant in film or television which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. She's also directed The Terrific Electric, and The Isis Project, both of which are non-notable projects, in wiki terms anyway and the majority of her references are either primary sources or mere mentions. So it fails WP:GNG also. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think the sock should be a debate topic here. The page has been protected by. In addtion, article are not keep/deleted on the basis of who edit it but strictly on the basis of notability. Am neutral for now. Wikicology (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. The acting career is unimpressive in the extreme ( Ubu Roi at the Battersea Arts Centre!), the only claim to notability is the Samuel Beckett award & I don't think thats enough.TheLongTone (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Numerous references, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. As has been stated, her career is unimpressive in the extreme and she has no more claim to notability than a million other middling theatre directors in the world. The only reason the article was created in the first place is because the subject has a very famous friend, and a certain banned editor has made it a project to create Wiki pages for everyone he knows. Many of the references cited are sketchy, like the subject's own CV, pages from her company's website, her agent's website, and so forth. The more impressive sources cite information that is not important enough to make her notable, such as the New York Times article that mentions her role as a witch in Macbeth in passing. Avianax (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 'KEEP' She may have had bit parts as an actress (still, she was credited, she is not some kind of extra-for-rent) but she has directed plays reviewed by the Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2012/02/10/entrancing-version-shackleton-tale/HrBKlbUDkEodjw485XMskK/story.html) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/theater/reviews/69s-at-bam-harvey-theater-review.html?_r=1&) among others. And these were shows in known venues like the Barbican Centre where she won a Samuel Beckett Award for directing and writing her play. Her French-language album with songs written by Guy Chambers is also available on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/isis-project/id68244687) and has been reviewed by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4556821.stm) and the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/may/25/popandrock1) among others. Lady Lotus, she didn't direct The Isis Project as you have said in your argument as she was the vocalist of all the songs in that album and even starred in some music videos for it. And Avianax she wasn't just mentioned in passing in the other New York Times article if you check, it was a review of The Shackleton Project. And an actor's CV from her agent's website is a reliable source, despite it being considered a primary source. But there are plenty of secondary sources cited in the page to establish her notability. So, yes, she is notable. And I agree with users Tomsculler, Hullaballoo and Wikicology. It's about the article. And it doesn't reference any famous friends of hers. The page is about her not her relations. The socks have already been banned. This discussion is about the notability of the subject, and it has been clearly established with reliable primary and secondary sources as seen in the page. TheVerge24601 (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Except not sure if we need agent website as source, enough other sources I think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing. Check out the 300+ pageviews each day, again not an official reason for keeping, but (for me) an indication of strong interest on the part of our readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (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.