Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia, Jake and Uncle Joe


 * 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   merge to Richard Whorf. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Julia, Jake and Uncle Joe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It seems a pretty useless article. Speedy delete per G7, author request. Eachwiped (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article itself may have no references but google search has. If notability is the reason argued upon, in any extent, as long as someone would put inline citation in the article, it could be saved. But, as part of the reason for deletion is G7, I can't fathom the author's wavelength is. I can only think of using G7 in one's personal userpages and subpages but not in an article-page like this. If G7 is being used, notability should not just be the sole reason for this to be deleted. Shoowak (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Richard Whorf. (There is plenty of room to expand that article with this information.) A one-day show on broadway is notable for discussion in an appropriately related article. Unless there is significant secondary coverage about a failed show, I would not consider it notable enough for its own article. I do not think that Wikipedia should be a database for every Broadway show produced. For those who think google hits equates to notability, you should surround this search term with quotes to get an accurate count. You will find here that there are only 49 google hits. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said earlier is not a vote but rather a comment. My point in the above statement is not notability, but rather, why should the article be nominated for a G7.. Just because I created the article, I can nominate it for deletion? Is that it?

I agree, we should not create every one-day broadway show produced.. but those broadways whose directors are notable enough can have their one-day broadway show here in wikipedia and that is Richard Whorf.. but I am not researching if he is notable enough for his shows to get here in wiki.

If there are google hits, there should be some black and white published somewhere out there, but as I said, I am not searching.. But you may be right with the merge. Shoowak (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment with Google search above There is no rule in wikipedia that an article should have a 50-hit Google searches for it to be notable. But there are also no guarantees that a 49-hit in Google search would give notable-enough sites for the article. Another thing, it is not just google who will provide notability for an article, so if it has only 11 google hits, but five newspapers to support the article, it, of course, will survive the notability issue. Shoowak's point is G7, ¢Spender1983's point is notability to stand as an article. My point is let us not delete article because we dont want it, and let us not create article because we want it. Let us have articles that, we know, someone will read them and someone could get information from them. I dont have an opinion if the article could stand on its own or be merged or be deleted. We need more opinions on this issue. Axxand (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Richard Whorf. It is highly unlikely that suitable independent reliable sources exist to justify an article about a failed Broadway play that closed after one night. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (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.