Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Wands


 * 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 Delete, based upon the discussion below. There is rough consensus that the coverage meets neither the general inclusion guide nor the inclusion guidelines for actors. The key element were that the sources have significant coverage of the article's subject.

There was some debate as to who stage actors may be a poor fit for the existing guidelines, however it was not sufficient to override the typically accepted encyclopedia-wide standards.

As usual, of course, deleted material can be requested via the restoration process, or simply by asking most administrators.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Susan Wands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Main editor of article's name may indicate WP:COI. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —  Meph talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This listing notes an American Actor of interest, with a substantial body of work. The references include reviews and listings from the New York Times, Playbill, Broadwayworld.com, and Theatre World. This work is of interest to the theatre community, and audiences. Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A proper re-write is called for here, not removal. I've done a cursory check, and there is information out there regarding this subject. Actresses like Susan Wands have a long trail of reviews and even articles written, sometimes, over many years. Such is the case here. Subject is notable. Evalpor (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: By all means re-write the article if you have managed to track down any genuinely notable material but, with the copious number of refs/links already listed in the article, it's odd that there is little or nothing of note amongst them. The article is not about "actresses like" the subject, it is specifically about the subject and unless there is material about that very individual, they are not notable. Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced? I've no reason to disbelieve that Susan Wands is a fine jobbing actress but that alone is not sufficient to make her suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Doddy Wuid (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would champion that this subject is notable and the Wiki article is appropriate. This Wiki article isn't just a "long trail of reviews and articles" about this actress, but her involvement in new scripts Off-Broadway and in regional theater for the last 20 years make her a notable Wiki entry. Her work cites productions with such playwrights as Horton Foote, Alex Timbers, Mario Fratti (librettist for the musical Nine), Mark St. Germain (Susan is featured in the premiere of his play The Best of Enemies at Barrington Stage (directed by artistic director Julianne Boyd)), and Andrea Stolowitz. Included in this article are important (new/premier works) American theatrical productions with the Joseph Papp Shakespare Theare in NYC, the Circle in the Square Theatre, La Mama Theatre, Primary Stages, and Ars Nova Theatre. My point being, it's not just her work that is being cited on this Wiki article, its the work of new American playwrights and productions. If the article needs to be rewritten to focus on that, I'll be glad to rewrite it.

Cwands (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: That Susan Wands has participated in these works, even if notable, or with these persons, even if notable, does not in itself make her notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Only significant coverage of the subject itself can endow notability on it and this "means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (my emphasis). The sources may mention her but largely only in cast lists or in brief mentions in articles regarding all aspects of a production or some other wider topic. Also, regarding the potential COI aspect, can you clarify if you are Susan Wands twin sister Cynthia, mentioned on SW's web site, linked from the article? Hardly the "impartial party" you claim on the talk page.Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am related to the subject, and I have made no effort to disguise that. I believe I am an impartial and competent Wiki contributor, having helped to contribue to two other pages. I must also point out per this subject's body of work is substantial and important to the developing of new scripts in the American theatre, not just her roles and her body of work, but the scope of work encompassed by the reviews and articles that have been written about her work in The New York Times, Playbill, Variety and other important venues. Per your request: Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced?


 * 1) New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008
 * 2) Variety, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 3) Talking Broadway, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 4) Backstage, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 5) Theatrescene, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 6) Theatremania, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 2008
 * 7) New York Times, Review of Henry IV, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991
 * 8) BroadwayWorld.com, Article Henry IV, featuring Susan Wands, 1991
 * 9) Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Henry VI, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991
 * 10) New York Times, Review of "The Belle Strategem", featuring Susan Wands, October 2003
 * 11) New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson", starring Susan Wands
 * 12) Talking Broadway, Review of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands
 * 13) Riverfront Times, Reivew of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands
 * 14) Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Passionate Women, La Mama Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands
 * 15) New York Times, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994
 * 16) Variety, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994
 * 17) The Record Review, Leaving Iowa, Adirondack Theater Festival, starring Susan Wands, 1994
 * 18) Old Globe Press Release, Knowing Cairo, Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, starring Susan Wands 2003

I strongly believe that this is a valid Wiki page subjectg and should be included in the Wikipedia.

Cwands (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Those that I have checked do at least mention her by name but there is little in the way of "directly in detail", particularly the "detail" aspect. Doddy Wuid (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)



If you are now requiring a list all of the reviews for this subject, with all the details citing the subject, in order to justify this subject's Wiki article, then I will add then per your request - but I would like to ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid to make this determination as to the relisting/approval of this Wiki article, as I can only surmise that this reviewer has a bias towards this subject or body of work.

Per the detail for performance for Susan Wands in the Arena Stage production of "A Streetcar Named Desire" (which is not one of the original premier works that is the focus of this body of work):

http://www.cercles.com/n10/londre.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

“Susan Wands gave a fascinating, strong interpretation of Blanche. Insanity is clearly closing in on this woman, but unlike the traditional fragile interpretation, Miss Wands’ Blanche is going down fighting” [Plyler]. Another critic found Susan Wands’s performance as Blanche Taut with the psychological complexity and ambiguity that Williams wrote into a part that is, some say (and this includes Williams), based on the playwright’s own unfathomable personality. She slowly, gently and affectingly dismantles the thin veneer of reality that props up Blanche’s world, always keeping one step ahead of our perceptions. It is a moving interpretation, far and away superior to the usual fluttery Blanche [...]. Wands conveys the redemptive idea that here is a woman once made of solid human stuff still clinging to her self- awareness. The slight quavers in her voice, the startled screams, an excessive gesture, the decorative laughs—by these things Wands gradually reveals a lapsing mind. She knows she is doomed, but she wants to be sane enough to observe her fall. In the end, she isn’t. That’s her tragedy. [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]

In general, the critics concurred that “audiences will find it easier to relate to Susan Wands’ less-fragile Blanche” [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

More detailed references to be added soon.

Cwands (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2. "Boom"  Talking Broadway.com review:

For a rare example of a storyteller more interesting than the tale being told, you need look no further than Ars Nova. But let the record state that the most fascinating feature of the play that just opened there, titled Boom, is not its playwright, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, but someone named Barbara. Bearing a bobbed shock of copper hair and wearing a slightly revealing, slightly frumpy black suit, Barbara (deliciously played by Susan Wands) looks like a cross between a schoolteacher and a just-past-her-prime 1960s flight attendant. She moves and speaks purposefully but haltingly; her habit of substituting gestures for certain words suggests someone for whom long-held intentions are being allowed escape for the first time. Yet her obvious discomfort is anything but uncomfortable. Positioned at an antiquated console equipped with an obtuse collection of levers, switches, and percussion instruments (including a tympani), Barbara radiates the self-involved joy of a woman completely in her element. You never doubt her certainty about anything, even when it seems that the people and buildings surrounding her are on considerably shakier ground. In a play tracking the tremors of change, a guide such as this is crucial to maintaining your own footing. But whenever Barbara starts throwing those levers and banging on her giant drum with the pompous intent of an epic film soundtrack, the work she's doing always seems more worthwhile than the work she's creating. It's only in Barbara, and in the sparkling, outmoded sophistication Wands brings to her, that the at-odds halves of the story meld into one. As the play evolves, and as the depths of Barbara's personal connection to her presentation grows less murky, it becomes less shallow and much more appealing. And once Nachtrieb stops relying on Armageddon clichés just past the 90-minute evening's midpoint, his play even begins to assume a surprising celestial beauty.

The most startling part of this is that Boom legitimately earns it, its gradual ebb and flow becoming by show's end a wave of cleverness that at least leaves you with the impression of a show of some significance. That too many involved haven't figure out how to bring that quality to the rest of the show is unfortunate; that Barbara and Wands almost succeed in picking up the slack is its own small, explosive blessing.

Talking Broadway Review of Boom

Cwands (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

3. New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson",

The central figure in Jim Leonard Jr.'s play is Elizabeth Ann Willow, a young victim of cerebral palsy (Susan Wands in a wheelchair and braces). Why Elizabeth Ann stopped speaking in her mid-20's is the question the play asks and, in a manner of speaking, answers. The heroine makes it plain that she aspires to soar, but she gets no help from anyone, including the playwright.

New York Times Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson"

Cwands (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

4. Variety  Review: "Talking Pictures",

Like many of his plays, Foote's "Talking Pictures" is set in the fictional town of Harrison, Texas, during a time of transition. Harrison has a lot in common with Brian Friel's Ballybeg: It's a point of return, a touchstone, a field of the imagination on which an author has played out all his fancies. Nothing happens and everything happens, usually within the span of a few days. Foote is congenitally more upbeat than Friel, but isn't that the American virus? "Talking Pictures" is set in 1929, when silent movies are about to give over in a big way to talkies and the change is generating an almost sexual anticipation in small towns like Harrison....

Susan Wands is quite perfect as Willis' pouty gold-digger wife, Gladys.

Variety Review of "Talking Pictures"

Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

5. The Record Review :  "Leaving Iowa",

At its heart, "Leaving Iowa" is a 90-minute intermissionless play that takes two hours and 15-minutes to complete (including a long intermission).

Susan Wands is also terrific as the June Cleaver mom who shows infinite patience, until she is pushed too far.

Troy Record review of "Leaving Iowa"

Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cwands (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

6. UT Daily Beacon, Review, Triumph of Love:

These “attempts” include multiple accounts of cross-dressing that lead ...... (Susan Wands) to fall in love with Leonide’s different incarnations. Susan Wands as Leontine, Agis’ sister, also enchants. We are convinced more of her love than any of the other characters’, but the way her character arc ends is fairly strange (we actually wonder if she is still in love with Leonide even after Leonide’s true identity is revealed). utdailybeacon.com/.../triumph-provides-enjoyable-complex-story/ -

Cwands (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

7. TNJN, Triumph of Love:

And Susan Wands stole the show with her brilliant portrayal of Leontine. The youthful transformation that she showed in Leontine was both exciting and inspiring, leaving the audience satisfied in its honesty. Cwands (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

8. Talking Broadway Review, Henry VI:

...and Susan Wands as the emperor’s one-time lover – and just perhaps the mother of his child – handles her end of the often absurd confrontations with great aplomb.

Talkinbroadway review of "Henry IV"

Cwands (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cwands (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.67.185.194.103 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.97.94.118.132 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Evalpor and evidence (poorly) presented. To the contributor, please read WP:SOCK. Just in case. Moray An Par (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in resolving this issue. Please let me know if there are any changes I need to make to this article to make it more "Wikified" Cwands (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 
 * Weak Keep this seems like a barely notable performer. She is has one credit in Internet Broadway Database, and that is for an understudy role.  The article was obviously written by her or a relative.  --rogerd (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Her sister isn't doing her any favors here, but the performer clear meets the GNG, as a straightforward Gnews search shows; more than enough coverage in the NY Times alone. The list of directors who've cast isn't exactly shabby, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. Assuming you are meaning a search in Google News, I'm puzzled by this as I get only two hits for the term "Susan Wands" and these are just name checks, along with others, in lists of the cast of one production; hardly "directly in detail". Perhaps it's filtered differently because I'm not in the U.S. but I am searching the U.S. region news. What term are you using in your "straightforward Gnews search"? Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer. You're looking only at the results for the last 30 days. Click on the "Archives" link at the left side of the page to get more complete results, which run back over nearly 30 years. And even more reviews turn up in the GBooks search. And, this being an area where googling gives nothing like complete results, we're looking at only part of the iceberg. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. That said - well Ravenswing nails it pretty solidly below. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: The NY Times, Variety and Playbill are certainly reliable sources, but not a single damn source either in the article or in the laundry list posted above discuss Wands in pretty much any detail, let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Her name is mentioned in articles mentioning several other actors, and that's about it.  Quite aside from the probable WP:COI issue, the Keep proponents seem bedazzled by "OMG look, a list of SOURCES!!!!" without actually examining those sources to see if they mention the subject in significant detail.  I've yet to examine one that does.  WP:GNG explicitly states that a sentence or two constitutes a trivial mention, and few of these sources devote as much as a single sentence to Ms. Wands.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, that's not an accurate assessment of what's out there; for example, there's a full-length profile here, for example. And there's a lot of material behind paywalls in the GNews search. Second, the argument fundamentally misunderstands notability. Wands is notable as an actor because there are dozens of sources discussing her work as an actor. The GNG certainly does not say what you would have it say; A single one-sentence mention of a tangential subject in a full-length book may be trivial, but that is not the standard to be applied to the assessment of a cast member's performance in a review of a play, where the matter is essential to the review as a whole and space is far more limited. Aside from the GNews hits, there are many more that show up in GBooks (quite a few magazine reviews that Google has decided to index as "Books" rather than "News"). And Wands is notable as an actor, and the sources directly address her work as an actor. Perhaps she'd get more spectacular coverage in the New York Post and in TMZ if she were prone to embarassing public behavior, romantic escapades, and the occasional round of overt substance abuse, but there's more to the acting world than Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. If Martin Scorsese casts her in Boardwalk Empire, if Joanne Akalaitis casts her in the New York Shakespeare Festival, if Newsweek reports that "the Imogen of neophyte actress Susan Wands full of an inner radiance that elevates the play beyond its merits" and if a reference work held by many academic libraries devotes space to analyzing her performance as Stella in a performance of Streetcar then she's clearly a legitimate encyclopedic subject, even if we don't know much about her sex life, her dietary opinions, her pets, her favorite sports teams, and all the other trivia that infests our biographies of semi-celebrities. WP:BLP says that when we write about noncelebrities, we should "include only material relevant to their notability", which in the case of an actor is his or her work, and it should be clear from reviewing the sources that this actor's work is well documented in reliable sources, and that demonstrates notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we stick to the dearth of detailed material about her work rather than peripheral aspects of her life, that nobody else has expressed any interest in, despite your implication? Again, WP:NOTINHERITED. Being employed by someone notable and/or in something notable does not in itself make someone notable. If there is, however, significant, detailed and direct coverage of her contribution to Boardwalk Empire or the New York Shakespeare Festival, that, of course, is a different matter and I'm perfectly happy if that's the case (I'd freely admit you seem to be better at rooting out material with Google, so go for your life). Likewise with being covered(/briefly mentioned) in a notable publication: reliable but not necessarily notable. A detailed profile in 28 years is something and a mountain of brief direct mentions in despatches, some clearly positive, indicate she may well be a capable jobbing actress but in few, if any, of these examples can it be said to be "significant coverage". Doddy Wuid (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have to object to the representation that the body of work reviewed cited in:


 * 1) New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008
 * 2) Variety, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 3) Talking Broadway, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 4) Backstage, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 5) Theatrescene, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008
 * 6) Theatremania, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 2008
 * 7) New York Times, Review of Henry IV, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991
 * 8) BroadwayWorld.com, Article Henry IV, featuring Susan Wands, 1991
 * 9) Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Henry VI, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991
 * 10) New York Times, Review of "The Belle Strategem", featuring Susan Wands, October 2003
 * 11) New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson", starring Susan Wands
 * 12) Talking Broadway, Review of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands
 * 13) Riverfront Times, Reivew of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands
 * 14) Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Passionate Women, La Mama Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands
 * 15) New York Times, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994
 * 16) Variety, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994
 * 17) The Record Review, Leaving Iowa, Adirondack Theater Festival, starring Susan Wands, 1994
 * 18) Old Globe Press Release, Knowing Cairo, Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, starring Susan Wands 2003

does represent a notable contribution to American theatre, regional and Off-Broadway credits, and despite the attempt to negate the accomplishments of this performer, this article is of value. The reviewer Doddy Wuid seems to have a personal agenda against this performer - as his continued objections to this listing seem completely subjective. Although this actress is not a celebrity, her contributions to the curent American theatre, especially in new scripts and productions is notable. Just because Doddy Wuid can't see the value in that does not mean that her Wiki identity is not notable. Can I just ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid review this relisted article, as I don't believe his claims are creditable. Cwands (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That really takes the biscuit! The one person in this debate who does have a clear and demonstrable COI, despite being very slow to make the fact known, accuses someone else of having a personal agenda! Read WP:AGF. There is nothing personal about this as I had been unaware of Susan Wands until I chanced upon the article (and this is not a dig at her profile or notability). This is purely about the article and its notability. There are others who are on the keep side of the debate who, though I may disagree with their conclusions, are applying valid points of policy to the debate, some of whom have pointed out the damage which you are doing to the case by your interventions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or userfy - I see some kernel of notability, but it is such a mess that it may need a substantial re-write from PR to encyclopedic content. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The analysis of the available sources by other veteran editors as tangential appears persuasive. While a case for borderline notability might be made, the history of the article indicates that it will likely continue to be misused for promotional purposes, and under these circumstances it's not worth the effort of maintaining it and keeping it spam-free.  Sandstein   05:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet any section of WP:NACTOR, and I'm not persuaded by the arguments of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz the page meets general notability. If kept it certainly needs cleanup. The 1983 full-length profile linked is the only source out of the lot which meets "directly" and "detailed", and is from subject's hometown paper. As pointed out above, the quantity of sources doesn't excuse the poor quality of the sources. Per WP:RECENTISM, I believe if this were about an historical actor we'd be applying a different standard of sourcing (stressing WP:ENT over WP:GNG), and deleting this page. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. How does she not pass NACTOR #1, with significant roles in Boardwalk Empire, the Public Theater/NY Shakespeare Festival, and other notable stage productions reviewed in major media like the NYTimes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound disrespectful to the page subject or the page creator. Doing work you love and you're proud of is a rare accomplishment. But to respond to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Significant? Doll Tearsheet in Henry IV is a significant role? Understudy to the female cast as the ONLY Broadway credit? Mrs. O'Neill (2 episodes) in Boardwalk Empire? This is a very low bar for the modifier "significant" when applied to the noun "role". Right now I'm not seeing significant as it regards encyclopedia pages. This page is about a fine working actor but the subject hasn't seen the media resonance yet to pass notability, IMHO. Virtually nothing salient. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BusterD, it's Pirandello's Henry IV, not Shakespeare's; Matilda is a huge role. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Matilda is a significant role in Pirandello's Henry IV (in St. Louis), but I was referring to the claimed Joanne Akalaitis credit: Doll in Shakespeare's Henry IV, parts I & II. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Didn't even see that. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Significant" here as opposed to "trivial", which has been the standing interpretation. And roles which are discussed in NYTimes reviews of the production are generally significant, even by stricter standards. I'm completely baffled by why there's such pressure to set the bar high under WP:ENT for actors doing significant work, but low for T&A performers, Kardashian hangers-on, and others of no genuine achievement. It's ridiculous that it's harder to keep articles on "fine working actors" with multiple reviews in national media than to remove articles on porn performers with tinplate handed-out-by-the bushel awards.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I commented below, the notability guidelines for actors really aren't equipped to deal with stage actors - on the one hand, the productions are notable and she has significant roles in them, but on the other hand, the number of stage actors for which this is true is exponentially larger than the number of film actors for which it is true - is every actor who's had a couple of leads or secondary roles in regional theatre notable? I've begun a discussion at the talkpage for WP:notability (people). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Part of the problem is that WP:ENT is really not set up to deal with stage actors. If Boom and Henry IV had been filmed, it would have been obvious that Wands was notable, but the notability guideline doesn't give adequate instruction for how to deal with plays, which have many performance with many actors, rather than films. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Another part of the problem is that many theater actors with better resumes and more significant accomplishments don't meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG either. BusterD (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe my above comment is slightly flip, however accurate. I didn't intend to sound sarcastic in such a serious matter. I wanted to acknowledge the point User:Roscelese makes above. Theater is a live experience which isn't processed simultaneously across the country like a film or recording; it is an immediate immersive experience which takes place in the here and now. As a result, all theater criticism is local. Some local theater criticism is good; the newspapers I threw as a child had truly awful theater criticism inside. No matter the variation, local sources don't generally make the best sources for this encyclopedia, except for major market work (New York, Chicago, LA, a small number of regionals). This definitely puts the working stage performer at a disadvantage when compared to the trivial hijinks which might gain the film or TV actor additional media coverage. Nonetheless, balancing such coverage is not why we're assembled here. We're here to decide whether this page meets standards of notability and verifiability. I stand by by my assessment above. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Response. So why are you dismissing the Newsweek review and the academic reference sources I pointed out? And doesn't the Newsweek review itself rather undermine your argument that "a;; theater criticism is local"? To say nothing of the fact that the NYTimes rather frequently reviews British theater (and even theatre). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I'll concede the subject's name is mentioned once in both sources, but both sources together don't constitute two full sentences. I'll concede that national magazines occasionally publish local theater reviews, usually coming from the major markets I listed, plus West End. I've looked at the provided sources and I don't see any reason to change my position. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is promotional and reads like a theatre resume with no dates and no balanced treatment of the subject, rather than a biography.  When was she born?  Where was she raised and educated?  Who are her parents and siblings?  Did she do any other jobs before acting?  Look at, say, Bernadette Peters, for an idea of how to write a bio article for an actress.  When an article is written by a person with a WP:COI it makes it harder to write a balanced bio.  There should be quotations from both positive and negative reviews of the actresses work in major productions.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)