Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists

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. Consensus seems to suggest that this article is not suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be deleted article per Wikipedia:Notability and also per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure which state "The names of non-notable (i.e., non-bluelinked) ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted. Only the actors playing principal (significant speaking and singing) roles should be mentioned." I have added the original cast lists for the three major productions at Legally Blonde (musical) and there have been no notable replacements (blue linked) in any of these casts (the london production is yet to open) Mark E (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @741 · 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of separate cast lists on another musical theatre article, Wicked, archived here:[1]. This is exactly the same situation, and the decision was to delete the Wicked Cast List per WP:NOT. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments by Mark and Jean. No notable information exists in this article that could not be covered in the parent article, Legally Blonde (musical). While I believe these articles can sometimes serve a purpose, namely giving the fans a sandbox to play in (effectively keeping the cruft out of the main article), I find they often develop into little more than an uninformative list of names. What's worse, it's often difficult to verify the changes being made due to the non-notable nature of many of the actors. I've worked with this article in the past, and while I cited what I could, I was hard-pressed to find sources for most of the cast lists and replacements IPs would often add. If we can't verfiy the accuracy of the information, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —MearsMan ^talk 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. This is a broadway level performance, and the notable actors/positions can be recognized. I agree, kill the ensemble of non-noteworthy members, but I think cast lists are worth keeping. This would, IMO, be on par with professional rosters for sporting teams. The fact that it includes non-notable cast/ensemble, is not grounds for deletion, but rather for clean up.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above, please see the article Legally Blonde (musical) where all the note-worthy information from the article nominated is presented neatly. These cast list articles become lists of unworthy ensemble/understudy/standbys etc. Just yesterday I deleted a list of everyone to ever be a ballet girl in billy elliot the musical from that cast list article. The article currently has Not announced for all understudys for the london run. So what! This specialist information can be found in the programme for the show and also on the shows official website.Mark E (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete You have to remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. How are lists of ensemble members, swings, and understudies even remotely encyclopedic? Who cares who they are except their mothers and agents? How is the Broadway Cast Replacement History noteworthy when only one person listed is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? How is the fact that Lucia Spina replaced Natalie Joy Johnson as "Enid Hoopes" on July 23, 2008 encyclopedic? I think articles like these are created by fans, not serious editors. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarkE, JeanColumbia, and 209.247.21.77. LargoLarry (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.