Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice in Wonderland Musical (1997)


 * 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. No prejudice against a possible refund if future productions yield more substantial notability. bd2412 T 02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland Musical (1997)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be an adaptation for use in community theatre so no professional productions, and does not appear to have significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Depends on what constitutes "professional". 2008 production was staged by the Fort Collins Childrens' Theater, an organization employing paid professional actors (for evidence of production, see cached article in local Style mag and also YouTube video of a "professionally done" production number from that production ), as was a 2011 production staged by EmilyAnn theater company of Wimberley, Texas, so "no professional productions" is a false statement. And a clearer definition of "significant coverage" is needed. Here is a link to old public notice of the EmilyAnn production: . There are many more such notices on the web.Msirt (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep : Author has "paper trail" of 87 international licensees of the production.Msirt (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for context, User:Msirt states he is one of the authors of the work so has a WP:COI. Still don't think it's anywhere near WP standards for WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 25:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Although there may be a WP:COI because I am a co-author, it should be noted that I did not create the page originally. It was posted unbeknownst to me by a participant in one of it's many productions. I discovered it quite by accident, but have taken on it's maintenance since then, since the original required corrections & syntax editing. Additional historical information and external links were added by me and I have continually monitored those links for viability.Msirt (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Small edit.Msirt (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've struck the duplicate !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete never produced in any notable, professional venues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Struck duplicate !vote info reposted as comment: "Author has "paper trail" of 87 international licensees of the production".Msirt (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep : Comment: (in answer to "delete" by John Pack Lambert) Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts of Fort Collins, CO, which served as the venue of the 2008 production would seem to be a professional venue .Msirt (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have struck this new duplicate "keep" !vote. Msirt: Your comment here still stands; no need to post it again. It's just that you're only allowed one bold "Keep" on a page like this. More than one, and the wiki-deletionists start crying "Off with his page!" -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you Gpc62. Just learning the ropes here. Hadn't realized what !vote was and that "Keep" was one of themMsirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Off with his page!" Cute. Just got the joke. A little slow this morning.
 * Comment: (to original critique by Boneymau) "Appears to be an adaptation for use in community theatre" assumes an intention of sole purpose, whereas the production as stated on the production website is intended for both professional and community organizations. And certainly, the Disney stage version (which is noted under the Disney Franchise WP article ), plays for more "community organizations" than it does for "professional ones". In fact, it's not a stretch to imagine that distribution as Disney's commercial goal. As has been pointed out, I am co-author (and composer of the score) and I will testify personally that my first intention is for this to be produced professionally (as it has been on the occasions noted), since the music is sophisticated and is done more justice by professional artists.Msirt (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't know if any of the productions count as "professional" by Wikipedia's standards, but this musical has been seeing productions for the past 20 years. To me that's enough to warrant keeping the page. The nominator's dismissive "seems to be an adaptation for use in community theaters" had me expecting to find that it was merely an adaptation of some other musical version of the book. No, it's an original adaptation (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) of the book. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not trying to out anyone, but this article is a very obvious case of COI, as it was written by a cast member and substantially contributed to by the coauthor/composer/lyricist. I'm not ready to cast a !vote yet, but that fact should be noted here. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Comment by Softlavender that author wrote the article is completely untrue. Please check the history. As stated above, it was posted unbeknownst to me by a participant in one of it's many productions. I discovered it quite by accident, but have taken on it's maintenance since then, since the original required corrections & syntax editing. Additional historical information and external links were added by me and I have continually monitored those links for viability. Here is the creation entry: (cur | prev) 14:55, 31 December 2014‎ Iloveyouallforevernowdie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,264 bytes) (+7,264)‎ . .Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: The creators are not notable, it has never had a production that received any national press, and never produced at a recognized regional theatre company. The sources are mostly very weak, including blogs. Certainly the cast list of the amateur cast of the "Kids on Stage" production in Staten Island, sponsored by the Parks Department, should be deleted. The co-author claims above that the EmilyAnn production was "professional", but it seems to be more like a summer camp program.  The Fort Collins production was definitely community theatre -- the article cited above says that it is a "local adult theater group producing live theater for children ... [a] long-running volunteer group."  Therefore, it appears that the adaptation has never been produced by a professional company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Re: "Creators are not notable". A Google of my name "Michael Sirotta", will show I have some notability in the New York theater scene as a theater musician/composer, having been composer in residence at La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club (La MaMa E.T.C.), and was Ellen Stewart's personal music director from 1998 to her death in 2011. (As an example, I am mentioned in a news clipping about her St. Patrick Cathedral funeral where music I composed accompanied the ceremony). I also have a long history of collaboration with Elizabeth Swados, having been musical director and arranger for her "The Beautiful Lady" (winner of a 1985 Helen Hayes Award), as well with as many other of her creations. I was also a nominee for the New York 2005 "Innovative Theater Awards Outstanding Original Music" award  (Although the music to "Perseus" was a collaborative effort, as musical director, most of the composing fell on me). In a recent Theatermania.com review of a production of Pasolini's "Pylade" at La mama, I receive a strong compliment for my score for the production.Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Cast of the "Kids on Stage" entry should not be deleted because it is historically the cast of the world premiere. Original creator of the page had listed the cast he/she was in as the original cast. I corrected that when I discovered the article.Msirt (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: EmilyAnn and FCCT may have volunteer administrations, but they do hire professional directors and performers to augment community participants. So it's a bit of a grey area of the level of "professionalism" these productions exhibit. And, as commented above, more "recognized" children's shows (such as Disney's) are mostly taken up by community enterprises, and yet they qualify for mention in WP.Msirt (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional article about a work that does not meet notability guidelines at all. A few minor local (non-professional) productions with even fewer very minor local reviews. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Local? There will be an upcoming production in Dubai in March, 2018. There have been 87 licenses thoughout the US and internationally. I'd call that more than "a few".Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, small, local, obscure, non-professional productions; with zero notable reviews. In fact, only one review all, from the Staten Island Advance in 1997. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been other "local" as you call it reviews, that given the longevity of this production, have lapsed online. However, none of this GNG complaint takes into account that the show has been seen by thousands of audience members over it's long tenure. And it especially prejudices against young people as counting in any test of notoriety.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I note you have not corrected your false assertion of my authorship of the article.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: . -- Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is your quote: "this article is a very obvious case of COI, as it was written by the coauthor/composer/lyricist". That's a pretty blanket statement of original authorship. The fact that the article was not created by me takes a lot of weight of a COI charge against me. The article as originally posted needed correcting and called for additional details, which I was in a position to do. If there's a COI in that, I'd say I had an interest but there's no conflict here on my part as I'm only arguing the merits.Msirt (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: . -- Softlavender (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Article written by" would be understood by most readers as "created by". An entirely misleading statement.Msirt (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: . -- Softlavender (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I contributed to it, because I neither "wrote it", nor "created it", there is no COI.Msirt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You substantially contributed to it, and it was created by a cast member, so it is entirely COI. I have amended my post above. Please learn to properly indent your posts to nest correctly (I have had to do that for you three times so far), and remember to sign your posts (I have now done that for you). Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Article was created by a cast member whose identity is unknown to me that I have absolutely no connection to, from some production removed from my locale. The originator of the article has no vested interest in the production other than having had such a positive experience in participating, felt it worth taking the trouble to create the WP article. Consequently, this "creator" is not arguing the case. This weakens the COI charge against the creator, I feel. But I, only having an interest making sure the information was correct, current, and robust in details of the material, see less of a COI issue in my contributions, edits and also arguing of the merits here. Thank you for the correction as noted. Advice taken on formatting.Msirt (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: This discussion has led me to probe further into what counts as a promotion on WP. Consequently, I discovered that having an external link to the production website constitutes such an infraction. That link has now been removed. The article now simply states facts.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks national reviews, coverage is local only. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2017 (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.