Talk:Palace of the End

Productions
I looked at Wikipedia articles for over 100 modern plays. Most did not mention productions but in that minority that had details or a section on productions, they and the sources are significant and extensive in numerous ways with paragraphs of details like had 500 performance at each theatre, running for 5-10+ years at many theatres, background information, individual award-winning performances and productions, and more. Here, we have a one-sentence list drawn from short reviews of performances that lack depth, giving a very short summary of the play and a couple minor details at most on the performance.

Those other plays are visibly a lot more notable than "Palace of the End", like the "To Kill a Mockingbird" play based on the legendary book. We don't have sourcing on anything significant of the productions for this play. The available sourcing gives the impression that the play ran once at each of a few select theatres, or that it ran consistently, but sourcing does not report either, which deeply diminishes claims of notability and reliability of inclusion. The sentence was added by a related WikiProject's effort in the context of an AfD discussion to make the argument to keep the article, but after researching, it is not consistent with the larger body of theatre-related articles and hurts what notability could be claimed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You may not remove sourced content from the article at the same time as you nominate it for deletion. Wait until the AfD is completed, and then we can argue about content. Meanwhile, the content that you are trying to delete will speak for itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Content must remain as is until the AfD is concluded. Jack1956 (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the policy that states this? I haven't heard of such a thing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find any policy that says this. I've reverted the content because it was reverted not by addressing the Talk section or reasons for revert but by making up a policy that doesn't exist. I understand you want to keep this article because it falls in the topic area of related WikiProjects of which you are its most active member, but spurious statements and making up Wikipedia policies is not the way to do it. Please see WP:OVERCOME, WP:NPLOT, and WP:GNG. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No one agrees with you. Further, your implication that editors who frequently edit in a particular subject area have an interest in "keeping" articles in that area is frankly ludicrous and backwards. On the contrary, such editors, if they are experienced Wikipedians, have a good sense of what is encyclopedic and what is WP:NOT in those areas. In any case, do not WP:EDIT WAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I now see that you have been banned before from editing Kurd-related article and have also been cautioned before specifically against deleting sourced information from an article under discussion at AfD. I suggest that you move on from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

More sources for this article
sources that show this easily passes GNG. These include:
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books



More:
 * Google news search -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)