Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name


 * 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   redirect to She_Has_a_Name. A contentious AfD, given the nominator's background and status--but this discussion has so many participants and so many arguments pro and con that we can't just close this as Speedy Keep because of a possible bad-faith nomination (WP:SK, item 2). I see a consensus to delete the article, but to appease those who were so impressed by the sourcing, I will close this as "Redirect" and save the history to give those editors the option to merge selected content. The argument that the article should not be deleted because it's a GA is not in itself sufficient, though it does point at adequate and reliable sourcing and things like that--at least four of the "keeps" use this argument. That it's a valid spinoff given the size could be a valid argument, but as DGG (and others) point out, that is a result of what can be called excessive coverage. On the other hand, "deletes" argue that a. the content is already covered in the main article and b. is excessive. Wobzrem points out that there is much repetition in the three articles and that the language is "hyped-up", a point made by Tokyogirl, Squeamish Ossifrage, and others as well. A more essential question is asked by Wikimedes: whether, if I may paraphrase, a collection of reviews adds up to a subject called "Critical Response to X". That is the more interesting philosophical question and it's a pity this mine wasn't delved into deeper. But, to conclude, a preponderance of editors agree that the nomination is relevant, and that the content is excessive and promotional. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical response to She Has a Name

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Along with the article "2012 Tour of She Has a Name," it seems to be in a linking loop with the original article, which is itself of simply vast length considered the level of notability of the subject. WP:PROMOTION, WP:N Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Page includes, among other things, a lengthy "background" section regurgitating information already covered on the main page for the play as well. I can find no compelling reason for the existence of this article.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little bit like overkill. Critical reception should be summed up for the most part and this looks like it's a blow by blow account of each and every critic's response to the play in every place it was performed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to She_Has_a_Name. It's expected that any play would have a large amount of coverage as far as critical reception goes. It's also expected that if a play is shown in more than one place, that each location will receive coverage. However that does not mean that we need coverage of the critical reception of every location- typically the other performances/venues should only be covered if the performances are so well covered, so notable that they'd warrant a separate section about that cast/venue. The only time we typically branch off into a new article is when the subject has received so many awards and nominations in so many notable areas that it would make sense to have a separate article - and they have to be very, very many. This play has not yet gotten that level of awards, so there's no reason for a spinoff at this point in time. I also need to note that it doesn't help that the article is liberally peppered with various POV statements like "Those who listened to readings of the script at the Scripts At Work workshop are said to have been stunned into silence." It's sourced but it's also written in such a way that it really comes across like the page was written by a very devoted fan of the play. This may not have been the case, but in the end this is just way, way overkill. We don't need a blow by blow account of every review ever written- a brief summary is more than enough and anything other than this can and should be on a fan wikia or a website for the play. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, since this is all already fairly well summed up on the pre-existing article for the play, I don't see where any of this really needs to be merged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirecting would be acceptable, but since the only mainspace links to this article are from the play and its playwright, it's not particularly critical that we do so — once those links are removed, any likelihood of this actually being a potential search topic in its own right will completely vanish. Topic is already adequately summarized in the play's main article, without the need for anything here to be merged for further expansion — and the creator does have a bit of a history of going more than a bit overboard, giving this play a far deeper level of coverage (BLPs of actors whose only substantive claim of notability was having been an unnamed ensemble character in a production of it, etc.) than it actually warrants. No objection to redirect — though I'd actually prefer to just delete since the redirect isn't strongly needed and no content needs to be merged. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good argument for just deleting, so I wouldn't object to this getting deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, for reasons Tokyogirl elaborates. Pax 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Tokyogirl. Also, for something that is so ridiculously in-depth, it's awfully selective about what perspectives they choose to show. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. We have two or three articles by the same user on what is really a small local play, obviously serving as promotional fluff. I don't even think a merge is necessary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)`
 * Keep, GA quality article. Significant amount of secondary source coverage over time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cirt. 63 refs shows that there has been enough critical response to the play for a separate article. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per, , , and  . The author Andrew Kooman is a "good topic" which identifies Ten Silver Coins (a stub on an young-adult novel ), She Has a Name (GA), 2012 tour of She Has a Name (FA) and Critical response to She Has a Name (GA) as "among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community". I agree with the comments above that three articles on one play is overkill.  EChastain (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: The Good Topic is here, and only includes She Has a Name, the tour, and the critical response articles. Kooman himself and Ten Silver Coins are not a part of any Good or Featured topic, as they are not GA+ quality. -- Pres N  01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , please see this, at the bottom of the play articles.

Andrew Kooman
 * Sorry, I guess it's not a "good topic". But it is at the bottom of this article and the others. How can a reader tell which are in the "good topic"?  EChastain (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Featured Topics delegate (and possibly the de facto director) here. To begin, to be considered a "good topic" less than 50% of the topic, which at minimum has to be three articles of the same topic, has to at Good Article status. 50% and over makes it become a Featured Topic. What you displayed wasn't a topic but a template, which is completely different. PresN showed that the main article, which is the play, the tour, and the critical response all make up a topic because they are all part of the same subject. If you have anymore questions about topics, please let me know. I'm just here because if this article and the tour article get deleted, merged, or both the topic is no more. GamerPro64  03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I couldn't figure it out on my own.  EChastain (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Investigate The creator of this article Neelix, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see 1, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account Yakteur). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --Wolbo (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (repeating myself), per my comment on your talk page regarding this SPI, I also noted that Nellix has recently received warnings on his talk page for inappropriate admin actions, such as WP:INVOLVED, per violating Protection_policy on 4 January. See Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant and another on 6 January, see Pray tell where he blocked a newbie editor without warning. He was told about about WP:OWN and asked for an explanation for this edit to She Has a Name. He retired on 7 January, though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. So please don't be quick to blame sockpuppets.  EChastain (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge' - per others above, it is covered in the play. --DHeyward (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is something suspicious going on. Putting aside for a moment the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and join others in condemning the notability of this article and the other related AfD article, I am suspicious of the motivations of the nominator, who appears to be a sockpuppet (possibly of 184.161.25.16; Yaktaur, and Johnnydowns) and who may have a vendetta against articles like this one and a few others improved by Neelix (an experienced and prolific editor and administrator who improved other featured articles on this topic and who apparently retired after enduring wikihounding). As for the notability of this article, I believe it is notable because a) I have actually read the article and see how it expands on the knowledge in the section of its main article, b) it is part of a featured/good topic, c) it is a good article as recognized by other competent editors, and d) it is considered notable by the high number of external sources (I have spot checked them). Let us not cause an injustice against an undeserved article that was improved by a respected, now former, Wikipedian. Prhartcom (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)


 * Redirect to She_Has_a_Name - others hinted at it above, but with the main She Has a Name article sitting at only 29K of prose, I don't believe this meets the criteria for WP:SPINOFF. If the main article was at least 50K, I would consider "keep", and if it was at 70K I'd probably go with "strong keep, bad nom" (eg: Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix vs Jimi Hendrix) .... but it isn't, so I can't. Under the circumstances present, since the title is not what I would consider a typical search term, I would go with "delete". However, I believe I should make an exception here as in this case, merging the critical response back into the main article is probably going to be a lengthy and difficult task, and destroying properly reviewed prose and sources so editors cannot retrieve them (via the history) to do the merge is unhelpful - there's no rush to do it.
 * Upthread, a number of people have said "you can't delete this - it's a GA!" But, I also note that the GA review addressed these very concerns head on viz "I have no reason to believe, without prejudice to someone doing so at a future date (emphasis mine), this article with be merged with She Has a Name". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd failed to notice this one was also AFD'ed. Broadly speaking, see my comments at the other related AFD. Here, more specifically, the problem is undue weight. Start by looking at the critical response section in the parent article. That's a (relatively) reasonable survey of critics' responses to the play, generally in line with what we expect from similar articles. There was nothing special about the critical response to this play, nothing that made the critical response itself notable or distinctive. Yet this critical response article spends several thousand words conveying the reviews written about it. No media subject is given this treatment elsewhere in Wikipedia; nearly every newspaper in America has some sort of film review column or section, but each film release's critical response section is not spun off into an article of its own so that each of those voices can be presented; rather, we make editorial determinations as to which are significant and representative. That's the opposite of what was done here. And make no mistake, many of these critical response voices are from extraordinarily minor local news sources. That it is possible to assemble a facially well-written article thus doesn't make it compliant with policy; rather, it makes it promotional. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge leaning to keep. Article is of good quality, with enough sourceable information to show it warrants an article on its own. If it is deemed it doesn't then it should be merged into the main article, although i think that will make main article unwieldy. I do have concerns about the nominators motives as well, but others have went into that more than i care to. Blethering  Scot  19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be great if all Reception section/articles were this detailed. This could be a valid WP:SPINOFF because if it was left in the main article it may be undue weight relative to the other sections (e.g. Plot summary, Productions, etc.). No objection to a merge because I think it is still in the realm of reasonableness in terms of weight with the other sections. Deleting because of too much detail is going in the wrong direction. maclean (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It is absurd to think that 2 whole spinoff articles are warranted for such a minor play, especially when all the content on this page is summarized in a relatively more reasonable/restrained manner on the main article for the play itself. Even a merge isn't necessary since the 3 pages repeat each other so much, there's tons of overlap and what doesn't overlap is overly verbose hype language. There's just no need for this; it would be excessive even when applied to all but the few most famous and extensively covered works of literature or theater in history, and it's even more so when applied to such a fringe play. This is a total puff piece created by an editor who seems to have a history of creating similarly puffed-up, promotional features for his favorite celebrities, causes, and pieces of entertainment. Arguing that other content on Wikipedia is fanboy-created puff seems like an argument to delete other similar articles, not a reason to keep this one.Wobzrem (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is neither macro nor micro and this level of detail is incompatible with the balance of the original article. Whether or not the "2012 tour" should be merged is another issue entirely. This article has over 3000 words and the original article has 4900. In terms of pure size - they could be contained within, if not for what would occur. Other editors have come to this conclusion - Like Maclean. The deletes show that the purpose of AFD is not understood as actual deleting removes the history where as redirect or the more appropriate merge are the norms here. By all accounts, this is a deep examination of the play and is still a summary style presentation and worthy of inclusion. The balance and deeper examination is another reason to keep it separate - so readers of the original article can pursue the topic in more depth if they choose to. Overall it is a well developed set of articles in an imperfect and incomplete encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge in the short term and request that policies and/or guidelines regarding the required notability for spinout articles of the type of this and its related articles are created. I said in the recently closed deletion discussion of the related article that there might be grounds for more than one article on plays or other works which have had multiple performances, and proposed that one of the more basic spinout articles would be one discussing critical reception of the work and performances, and this article could reasonably be made on of that type. I guess myself the three obvious main and most justifiable articles on plays might be the main article a list of performances, including the where and when information, significant casting and performance information, awards and recognition, and that sort of thing, and a critical reception article, including the bulk of the material on the critical reception in general and maybe some extended material on particularly noteworthy performances. But that would probably best be handled at the relevant policy/guideline page. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started discussion at the talkpage of Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) regarding the notability of theatrical performances. Having not actually reviewed the references myself, the fact that others have said the article seems to be almost exclusively based on individual reviews themselves, rather than an sources secondary to the reviews, raises questions regarding whether this actually does meet notability. Having said that, I sure as hell can see a wikibook being put together based on the material in all three articles, and any other articles directly relevant. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - clearly notable. well sourced, and a GA status article. That says it all. This should not be deleted or merged. does not fail WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and dismiss calls to either delete or merge. The item is a good example of how to produce high-quality spin-off articles from high-quality main articles.  Why this is continually being hounded down, I know not, perhaps someone has an agenda...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question If the article is about the critical response, shouldn’t there be secondary sources discussing the critical response?  I looked through the entire Reviews section, and it appears to consist entirely of primary sources, that is the sources are the critical responses themselves.  I understand that a critical response section of play or movie article in most cases will need to use the reviews themselves in discussing the critical response, but it seems that for a stand-alone article, there usually need to be secondary sources to establish notability.  Is there to be an exception in the case of critical response articles?--Wikimedes (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete absurd over coverage. We sometimes do split these out for famous works, but there isn't enough here to split out. I think in practice "famous" is the right criterion for such split out articles, except in the cases where the critical response is more important than the work itself.  DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article about the play already has a section on this. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when sections become too large to be hosted by their main article, we create a spin-off article, like this, which is of high quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SS. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic, reads like something a PR department would release. Well sourced WP:FANCRUFT. NE Ent 11:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete based on too many primary sources (the actual reviews), lacking in encyclopedic tone, and for overcoverage of a minor play. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (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.