Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krampus (musical) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Krampus in popular culture. This was not the easiest close, but I do think the weight of argument based on guidelines and policy is against the article. That said where redirection is a reasonable option that is normally the course vice outright deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Krampus (musical)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim to notability. This musical only seemed to be relevant locally JDDJS (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, Non notable, local theater production Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.     </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Krampus to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Although the sources are all from Columbus, they provide "significant coverage" about Krampus as required by Notability. The Columbus Dispatch is a major regional newspaper in Ohio. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The musical also can be discussed in Krampus in popular culture so deletion is not a policy-based option per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Krampus (musical) participants:, , , , and . Pinging creator and major contributor . Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources including The Columbus Dispatch which is a regional rather than local paper, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The keep arguments that cite “significant coverage in reliable sources” are failing to take into account that press for a local stage production falls under WP:ROUTINE, per “ ..planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." This is the nature of regional theatre and every production the Short North Stage theatre puts on gets this same kind of “local scene” coverage from any and all local media be it print, TV, or online. Every single source cited above is promotional . More significant to why this fails as a notable play is that, per my google attempts, it appears this seasonal production was the only time this play was ever staged. If there were significantly more and they were backed up with similar coverage such as this one, I’d say keep. Until such a thing happens, at best this could be considered WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not consider theater reviews from regional sources to be routine. Regional sources are discriminate in selecting which productions in the region to review. Regional newspaper The Columbus Dispatch covers the Columbus, Ohio, region. The city of Columbus itself has around 860,000 people according to the Wikipedia article. The review at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2015/12/14/light-touch-just-enough-to-brighten-holiday-tale.html has a positive tone. Positive reviews should not be considered promotional sources that cannot be used to establish notability. The review offers extensive analysis of the musical. It calls Krampus a "lilting musical", "charming and touching", and has "just enough humor to lighten its darkness". It compares the title character Krampus to another literary character ("arc of transformation similar to Dr. Seuss’ Grinch"). It compares the musical with another literary work ("weaves echoes of Hansel and Gretel into the lush melodies, soaring solos and emotionality of European operetta"). Routine sources would lack such literary analysis. I prefer retention because I believe the subject passes Notability. But if editors disagree, the policy-based action to take is a merge to Krampus in popular culture in lieu of deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete local coverage in regional papers is still local, not regional, in nature, just as local coverage in National Papers is still local (we view the metro section of the Washington Post as local...) Cunard's sourcing is normally the best you can find for an article in question, and in this case, it makes it abundantly clear that this is not an article that should be included in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Krampus in popular culture - coverage does indeed seem to be local, it would be a worthwhile, encyclopedic addition to the other article.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it worth even that, ? This is a play that has only been produced once for 9 performances over a two week period in a theatre with a 150+ capacity. The math isn't exact but it has roughly been seen by a total of less than 2,000 people, and garnered routine local press. It has never had any other production or press beyond this single seasonal production, nor has it ever garnered any additional reliable source recognition beyond it's own homepage. Is that a significant enough imprint on the legacy of the Krampus topic? To me it seems it would be giving it recognition for mere existence rather than importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes. It is very short (particularly since the last sentences wouldn't be kept, as it would be redundant to the rest of that article), so it doesn't skew the article subsequent to the merge.  I believe it helps demonstrate a geographic diversity to the impact of the character on popular culture.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 23 February 2018 (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 and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A second look with this re-listing. I’m sticking with my previous vote of delete, based on my research and a refutation of the 2 keep votes. Per my comments above, this original musical has only been produced once for 9 performances over a two week period in a theatre with a 150+ capacity, meaning it was roughly seen by a total of less than 2,000 people. (There are high school plays that have had larger audiences during their complete run!) The two keep votes argue that this event has garnered “significant coverage from reliable sources.” The sources are The Columbus Dispatch, the Columbus, Ohio regional daily; Columbus Alive (a city dinning and entertainment guide owned by the Columbus Dispatch); Columbus Underground, a self-described on-line resource guide for Columbus, Ohio nightlife; and Columbus Theatre, a blog. I would argue that the Columbus Dispatch is the only significant source among these (even though Columbus Alive has its own wikipage). The Columbus Dispatch and the Dispatch-owned Alive account for 3 of the 5 references, with two of them being blatantly promotional. What’s left are 3 reviews, one in a metro daily, one from a blog, and one from a website that promotes Columbus area life. The only source that has weight, in my opinion, is that it was reviewed by the Dispatch critic. The coverage from the 5 cited sources span a four day period around the date of the play’s opening performance, during which local media typically reports on such things. Beyond this four day period this musical does not turn up in any additional searches beyond it’s own promotional website. My contention is this is not a notable play, and sources trying to prove otherwise are merely routine coverage of a local event (further research shows that every year the Short North Stage Theatre’s Christmas season production gets the same dutiful, routine-type coverage) and thus fails wikipedia standards for that reason. The above argument that the coverage transcends being routine because the 3 reviews are positive and one contains literary analysis is—and I don’t mean to offend—simply preposterous; poorly or well reviewed, insightful or not, doesn’t elevate the significance of the sources or the nature of the coverage. A final point: the article was created by a SPA editor, seemingly with an intent to promote either the play or the theatre. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2018 (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.