Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Theory of Justice: The Musical!


 * 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A Theory of Justice: The Musical!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Current lack of notability. Subject of the article is a musical (currently lacking any guideline of its own, but WP:Notability (film) is instructive) lacking in any typical route to distinguish it from many others: no run at a famous theatre, no notable cast members or producers/directors/lyricists/musicians, no famous awards, for example. Reliant on future success to grant notability, in my opinion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comments from the nominator: I'd like to confirm that I have found no further sources beyond those in the article. Most instructive are, I think, WP:N: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." and WP:FILM "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides." (The Oxford Journal link is broken, just to note.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. (Disclosure: I am a friend of some of the cast/writers, but that's just what brought me to the article; I wouldn't say I have any special interest in the article staying up.) It received significantly more attention from non-student sources than your average student production (at least one review by a practicing philosopher; attention from relatives of the real Rawls and Nozick, nomination for an award at the Fringe). To my mind that chimes with the general principle "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" from the guidelines linked. D  aniel  (‽) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If there's no SNG, the applicable guideline is WP:GNG.  This article was passed out of AfC space after debate. Multiple locations in addition to having other criterion that push it beyond the GNG threshold. Hasteur (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comments Obviously nominator is unfamiliar with GNG or reading. If that were the case they would have noted that the play itself has transcended the "single event or topic" threshold. Hasteur (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked for a discussion at AfC, but I'm not used to where to find one, and couldn't. Could you point me to it?
 * I am familiar with the GNG, thanks Hasteur, but for the reasons given believe the coverage does not mean that guideline.FILM and EVENT are useful in my opinion in understanding the sort of sources build towards the GNG. The Edinburgh Fringe features 2,695 shows each year, of which 1,200 have played somewhere else. The original performance was at a venue associated with many student productions in Oxford and the two student publications (the Cherwell and Oxford Student) may not be entirely independent of the subject. Other sources include interviews from the members of the musical, sources from the Edinburgh Fringe itself, and others which are exactly the sort of thing envisaged by FILM's "newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a SNG, we default to GNG. It is patently obvious to those who are not pre-disposed that the article does pass GNG.  You may find the discussion about the article when it was still in the AfC incubator in the history of the page.  As I said when I reviewed the page, if we could get a data point seperate from the Oxford/Theater comunity, that would be enough for an AGF on notability.  Given the subject matter and the method in which this content is presented, I think the there is a valid argument for the article and it's subject to be given a pass on Wikipedia's notability rules. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by a "pre-disposition", I have no other reason for thinking that the article should be deleted other than I think it fails notability. I'm confused by your reference to good faith; WP:AGF mentions nothing about notability (and I do not doubt for a second the good faith of the creators or you or anyone else). I suppose good faith on notability might be assuming that sources not used in the article exist elsewhere, but I think the article lists all sources available. Certainly in relation to the point in contention, the musical has only played in Oxford and on the Fringe.
 * Anyway, if you would take the Fringe to be a secondary site suitable of granting upon the musical enough sources capable of sustaining it as against the GNG, then I would not: the Fringe is open to anyone who can find a venue and pay the bill. Describing the musical at this stage as a "touring production" seems to push the oridnary meaning of the term. It's not like, for example, the musical playing in Manchester or Leeds at a theatre, like the Bullets and Daffodils example mentioned at AfC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per points made above, it clearly passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as this passes WP:GNG. Technical 13 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep May not have been staged at a famous theatre, but it has at a famous festival - the Edinburgh Fringe. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Clearly passes GNG. Neljack (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2013 (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.