Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Riders of the Flood"


 * 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   merge to W. E. Blackhurst. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Riders of the Flood"
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A drama with a local theme being performed at one location. No evidence of notability for the play or for the book from which it is derived. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 09:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  —Brian Powell (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The play seems to have a strong tie-in by illustrating the history of the Greenbrier River valley and Monongahela National Forest.  It also seems that the article refers both to the play and the theatre company/facility where it is held.  Perhaps the article could be recast to focus more on the facility with information on the play as a component, rather than the opposite as it is now. Brian Powell (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to W. E. Blackhurst--which is also a woefully underdeveloped and unreferenced article, but whose subject is probably (more) notable. I've trimmed the fat a bit from both articles and could have cut more: reliable third-party sources are needed, and plenty of copyediting esp. for tone. But the author seems notable to me, the play not (there wasn't a single reference in the article for the play that could be called in-depth coverage in a reliable source). If the author of both articles is following this: the bit about the forest may be true and relevant, but not without discussion in reliable sources--and without referencing WP articles: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ged  UK  07:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per Drmies. Insufficient notability for play. Reywas92 Talk  20:03, 2 May 2009 (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.