Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballyhoo (lighting cue)


 * 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. I'm sorry liveitup but nothing in the article is verifiable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ballyhoo (lighting cue)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article is not significant or known to many people since it only attracts the interest of those working or studying lighting design in theater. "Ballyhoo" is just a theatrical dictionary term used to define a certain type of lighting cue. As a result, the article is written like a chapter section or glossary term in the back of a textbook, which violates Wikipedia guidelines being that this site is not a dictionary or guidebook. The two book sources in the article are also just manuals and textbooks to stage lighting and I did not find any actual books about the history of Ballyhoo, so this term might not be widely used (I myself am a theater student and have never even heard of this word until now). I also searched the two men who the term "Ballyhoo" was named after according to the article on various search engines, including Google  and Bing   and did not find anything proving that they actually invented this cue, were major figures in stage lighting, or existed at all. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, WP:Notability, WP:DICT and norm. Iglooflame (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - What I could find about Ballyhoo in lighting books were dictionary definitions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep—If the article isn't a hoax, then it's a good article. The additional information provided in the article (names of inventors, their background, etc.) move this past a simple dictionary entry.  If the WP article stopped at the end of the first sentence, then I'd agree with a deletion based on WP:DICT.  But this is not a good application of DICT, and, assuming good faith for the offline references, two references is enough to establish notability for me.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - The problem is that none of that historical information is backed up with any reliable sources per verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2012 (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.