Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanie Scott


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Stefanie Scott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ENT. One apparently significant role. Editor disputing notability tag points to a minor role in No Strings Attached which does not show up in the plot summary in that article or the expensive cast list given. Too soon. Sum mer PhD (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —I Jethrobot (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep One significant role, which is being one of the lead characters on a series on Disney TV. If you go on the Ant Farm website and click on "characters", there's five listed - one of those is Lexi, who is played by Stefanie Scott. Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, as I said, she had one significant role. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Actress has had roles in multiple films that I think satisfy WP:ENT. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 June 2011
 * Comment - Yes, as I said, she had one significant role. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A named role in a SAG film is notable and significant. --Ozgod (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please clarify. Other than the role in A.N.T. Farm, which role is it you feel is significant? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep a loose interpretation of WP:ENT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If by a "loose interpretation" you mean "ignoring", please say so. There is no way to interpret "multiple" so that it means "one" or "significant" so that it means "minor". If your intention is to ignore the guideline, say so and explain why. Otherwise, all bets are off and we'll have articles on every actor who ever lands any role in anything. "Joe Blow, best known for his only role as 'guy holding newspaper' in Podunk, WI community theater's production of..." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Weak. Editors keep trying to add better known actors to her bio which is suspicious. If she is so important, why do editors have to hype her bio? I can see why the nomination was made but she does seem to have played multiple roles. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, she has played multiple role. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."- Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Let me see if I can get this through to people. The guideline that applies here is WP:ENT. That guideline calls for more than one significant role in notable productions. Yes, she has one notable role; she needs multiple significant roles. Yes, she has multiple roles; she needs multiple significant roles. If you want to keep the article despite the guideline, juust say so and explain why you believe we should ignore the guideline in this case. She clearly does not have multiple significant roles, so she clearly fails WP:ENT. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for having one significant ongoing role and several lesser ones.   Th e S te ve   07:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your !vote. Now, please explain why you have decided to ignore the guideline. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it IS a guideline, and only a guideline. AFD is for those things that do not fall cleanly under the guideline, and I feel that her work as an entertainer is significant enough to be included.  Clearly you feel the other way, and that's great!  Now we get to sit back and see what the consensus is.   Th e S te ve   07:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you feel we should ignore the consensus/guideline because you want to ignore it. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at this point, the consensus is running 5-1 in favour of keep. And there is a TV movie which she's appearing in for Disney which (if IMDB is to be believed) is in post-production at this point. Only issue is all I can find out about her part in the movie is just that she's in it so I don't know if it's a bit part or one of the leads. Tabercil (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, 4 not votes to keep from users who don't seem to understand the guideline and 1 not vote to keep from a user who wants to ignore the guideline because ze wants to ignore it. Whatever. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you seem so interested in my motivations, no, its because I feel that some number of minor roles is the equivalent, in fame or notoriety terms, as one major role. This, however, is not addressed at all in the guideline, despite the fact that there could be an actor who is famous enough to be included, but might have NO "significant" roles at all (also - where is the bar for significance?  I'm going to take a wild guess and say that your "significant role" is different from my "significant role").  So I am not ignoring the guideline (or perhaps, not *completely* ignoring the guideline ;)), but I personally have an addendum that says "X minor roles = 1 significant role" and I will vote accordingly.    Th e S te ve   06:58, 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.