User talk:Tabman711

Proposed deletion of The Secret Reunion (Play)
Hello, Tabman711. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The Secret Reunion (Play), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about The Secret Reunion (Play)
Hello, Tabman711,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Secret Reunion (Play) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/The Secret Reunion (Play).

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A few pointers
In your contested prod rationale, you mentioned that you believe the play is notable solely on the grounds that it is based on real-life people who are themselves notable. There's a strong consensus here on Wikipedia that notability is not established this way, that you have to show that the play is notable independently of these people.

Also, the comment section reads like it's your own interpretation of the play and its production. If it is, it will be deleted even if the article is kept. If it's based on the interpretation of a well-known critic, then the comments will have to be moved to a new section called "critical reception", the person who made the comments will have to be identified, and the comments portrayed as the opinions of that person, not as fact. In Wikipedia, we don't post opinions, we post only facts. Saying such and such are having such opinion is factual and acceptable, and even encouraged. Passing your interpretation as factual is not. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)