Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education to Theatricality


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Education to Theatricality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was written by one of a small number of people associated with the subject, and virtually all the cited sources are by one of his colleagues. I removed some publications in predatory journals, which turned out to be all the English-language sources that were not self-published. That is one massive red flag right there. It looks to me as if this is an attempt to promulgate yet another form of ideological pedagogy, of minimal demonstrable significance, but perhaps the Italian sources are less self-evidently self-swerving than the removed English ones. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure I understand what the subject actually is, but delete as promotional, fringe, and non-notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: gives little idea as to the subject, and seems to be an advertisement for whatever it's about. R. A. S immons Talk 00:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reasons in order of importance: (1) Egregious copyright violations. Some sections are whole quotes, which is inappropriate but not a copyvio. Other sections are quotes and do not cite the source. (some Google searches based on random quotes   ). (2) Pervasive essay and promotional WP:TONE issues. (3) WP:N. This is last because the other issues are so problematic that I didn't get around to doing a thorough search for sources to see if it's notable, but at a glance, it seems like a few people involved have written extensively, but secondary sources are lacking. Again, this is not the primary reason. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as no context for a better formatted article and this is best restarted when better is available. SwisterTwister   talk  23:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (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.