Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHURCHILL - 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   delete all. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

CHURCHILL - The Musical

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The musical has (on the surface) an impressive website, but I'm concerned as to whether the play itself is in any way notable. It appears to have had only a single performance, at the Lagoa Auditorium in Southern Portugal. Lagoa is a village/town of around 6,000 residents. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and may I suggest adding Andy Chafer, Trevor Holman and Derek Charles Ash, fellow-residents of a rather spammy WP:Walled garden. Shire Reeve (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would go along with that, and add Ray Jeffery. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Related articles now bundled in AFD discussion. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Churchill - The Musical had 10 performances and was extremely notable as it was the first of its kind EVER in Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott909 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you define "first of its kind EVER in Portugal."? Are you talking about West End/Broadway style musical theatre in general? Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sort of west end/brodway musical theatre had never been premiered in Portugal ever before, and therefore I think it notable. Please note that I am not benefiting from posting these pages, I am not part of the company at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott909 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply I have some difficulty believing that, as there appears to be a fairly strong tradition of musical theatre in Portugal, with theatres in Lisbon such as the Teatro Politeama pretty much devoted to the genre. There certainly appears to be a number of Portuguese musicals and adaptations of West End musicals. Churchill, from the evidence here, seems a little parochial in comparison... like an amateur drama society production put on by ex-pats (not intended as a criticism, I'm sure it was excellent). Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CHURCHILL - The Musical had a mixed cast of both professionals and amateurs. The four principals were all professionals, as was the Director, the Lighting Designer and the Choreographer who had only arrived back from America the day before rehearsals began, where he had been working on 'Dancing with the Stars' for NBC Television. I think Scott909 meant to say this was the first 'World Premiere of a new stage musical' to take place in Portugal as was testified by the TV companies that came from Lisbon to interview the writers and producers. As far as I can see this entry is simply stating a series of facts. The show was written (Fact), it received its World Premiere in Portugal (Fact) and it played to packed houses (Fact - ticket stubs available for verification if required). On their website (www.churchillthemusical.com) you can listen to radio interviews conducted by Kiss FM which tell you CHURCHILL - The Musical certainly wasn't 'a little parochial'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH1706 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)  — TH1706 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I am now in the process of going through the articles and making sure they are not part of a WP:Walled garden. I will add links to other wikipedia pages and references to external sites for verification of information. I hope this goes someway to helping the case for these items to stay on the wikipedia site Scott909 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Regardless of how important this play may be to the locals, it is apparently not notable beyond the boundaries of the community served by the venue. In an attempt to "sell" the article, it is now padded with non-encyclopedic trivia such as how many stagehands there were. Remove the promotional text, the ego stroking, and the trivial information and the lack of notability becomes very apparent. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely, the amount of stagehands is a FACT about the show? This is a factual encyclopedia is it not? I feel like you are being very delete-happy with these posts, and should perhaps suggest revisions which I would be more than happy to implement on how to make these articles up to your standards Scott909 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The most important improvements at the moment would be those that illustrate and/or support the notability of the subject(s) of the article(s) within the standards established for Wikipedia. The addition of trivial facts does not lend notability to a subject. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete them all. Clearly not notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable amateur theatre production and non-notable amateur thespians. none of this meets the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please could you explain your definition of 'notable' as it seems to differ greatly from mine and many others. Scott909 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability has a fairly specific usage in Wikipedia. Have a read of WP:GNG, WP:MUS and WP:CREATIVE. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: It appears that this musical, and all of the above articles created in an attempt to make it seem notable, are non-notable, failing under WP:MUS and WP:ORG and all other criteria of WP:NOTE.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that this musical is notable, with many newspapers from the country covering the progress story of it's creation and the like. Could I possibly be allowed to try and verify its notability? Scott909 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
 * You'd need significant coverage of the musical from multiple independent, reliable sources. I'd be surprised if you could find much in the way of non-trivial coverage in anything past local and weekly ex-pat press like the Algarve Resident and The Portugal News, both of which are based in Lagoa. Make sure that it conforms to WP:NRVE:
 * What would be ideal would be reviews of the show from newspapers equivalent in circulation level to The Times, The Guardian, etc. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  19:44, 28 March 2011 (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.