Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Ballet


 * 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 and redirect to Dream ballet. Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dream Ballet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Merge discussion hasn't resulted in merge being taken forward; this is all unverified information and I don't think there is anything worth merging. No concerns about a redirect to Dream ballet being put in place once it is deleted. Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's actually quite a lot of discussion about this dream ballet specifically, for example here, here and here, and that's not based on an extensive search at all. So I think there is enough material to support a standalone article.  On the other hand, this isn't that article.  One possibility would be to rename it Dream ballet (Oklahoma) and wait for someone to come along and write it properly.  On the other hand I'm not volunteering to write it, and just deleting and redirecting it, in its current state, wouldn't be the end of the world either. Mccapra (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Mccapra, those links lead to really interesting stuff about dream ballets in several works, and the 'dream ballet' as a device already has its own article, so any additional material from your links could definitely enhance that. I don't think there's enough information about this specific ballet to warrant it having its own page, but more than that, the device is a really important one and I would be sad to see this dream ballet being made to stand alone somewhere. It is in the comparison of them that the device really displays its potential. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There just isn't enough to support a stand alone article. Anything that isn't already in the Oklahoma! article can be sourced and added there. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article just repeats, in lengthier form, plot information from the article Oklahoma!. The subject, an orchestral dance number, is also already mentioned in the article Dream ballet, and the title of this article will cause confusion with the Dream ballet article. This article has no references, and not every musical number from a musical needs its own separate article. This musical number is not frequenly separately recorded or used in any other way than as a part of Oklahoma! productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete; do NOT redirect. This is just uncited fancruft from a rank newbie. And merging or redirecting to another article will likely confuse and harm the issue further, since Dream ballet already exists and Oklahoma! should therefore not be a redirect target even though this fancruft article is about Oklahoma!. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I’m really undecided on this one. This ballet sequence is definitely notable as it was the first example of one in musical theatre. However, this article definitely isn’t OK as it is, and doesn’t analyse to the quality we would want. As per Softlavender a redirect to Oklahoma would be inappropriate, but renaming to Dream ballet (Oklahoma) could be an option as per Mccapra. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello all this is the creator Fiscus Brady!! Having seen multiple and worked on one production of Oklahoma!, the dream ballet is an extremely important part of the plot. I created the article because I felt Oklahoma!'s page did not have enough information about the ballet. I can certainly delete it, or I would be open for suggestions to fix it. I agree with Mccapra that it is important because it is one of the most notable and the first dream ballet seen in history. And to Softlavender, (A) I tried to create the article as unbiased as possible but if you see it as "fancruft" I can certainly re-write it and (B) please use kinder words when referring to me as I can see these messages. To all, please let me know if there's anything specifically to fix or if it should just be deleted as a whole. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) —Preceding undated 22 May 2020 (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.