Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace of the End


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Closing this early per WP:SNOW--the "yes" votes are well sourced and well argued, and their arguments stand, though the nominator has pulled out all the stops--including violations of AGF, bludgeoning, and providing incorrect assessment of sources. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Palace of the End

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating per WP:NPLOT and more broadly WP:INDISCRIMINATE, failing WP:GNG, and no indication of encyclopedic importance and notability. Most of the limited coverage was in 2008-2010 when the play was running in some theaters and the coverage is mostly in the form of short reviews of individual performances. The best RS give little more than or as much as a plot summary of the play typically in the form of a short review of a performance of the play. Other sources include trivial mentions, product pages for the published play, promos. This is in spite of the play was published and performed during the heyday of the Iraq War it's based upon and what attention it got was bolstered by that globally significant event. It's on the opposite end of the notability spectrum from other theater-related articles like Romeo and Juliet, which can still be improved.

Fails WP:GNG too especially SIGCOV. The best sourcing, redundant short plot summaries with a couple details about an individual performance, are minimalistic in depth. I'm open to that a few more non-notable minutiae could be added but the one important element from secondary RS is a short plot summary.

Important because this is the one of the most common misinterpretations in AfD, if an argument is to be made for it, WP:GNG is not a guarantee for notability. GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, for notability. It's a low minimum threshold to be able to presume and consider the subject's "notability" and inclusion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. This play, by a notable playwright, has had quite a few productions at notable theatres and numerous, uniformly strong reviews.  Its published version has had a 2nd edition.  It won the 2007-08 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize. The article is just a stub and needs to be fleshed out, but there appear to be lots of reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This "Keep" comment makes vague, spurious, and incorrect statements that are addressed below.
 * The notable playwright comment is unsubstantiated and unrelated. The playwright's article is all unsourced OR. There isn't an evidenced case for notability on the playwright and the (unsubstantiated claim of) notability of the playwright does not transfer to the play. Only 3 of the playwright's plays have articles. Of the other two, one is mostly unsourced OR and the other is a barely-sourced stub. Regardless, this doesn't confer notability on this article.
 * I can see a performance at Arcola in London as far as "notable theatres" go, which I sourced on the article, and still, that very short review says nothing more than a short plot summary.
 * What does a second edition have to do with notability? Not worth mentioning.
 * The "appear to be lots of reliable sources" (assuming unsubstantiated claim of reliability) is indeed an appearance. I addressed it in the nomination, and does not mean significant coverage either. If "lots of reliable" reviews are redundant and nearly all give the same minimal coverage, almost nothing more than a plot summary, this does not meet GNG.
 * The award is not evidenced to be notable (that is, not anything like a Tony or similar) nor on its own makes the play notable. Among other evidence, most of the other plays on the mostly unsourced award page are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and those that do have a strong case for deletion for similar problems. The award's article is nothing more than a long list of winners and finalists. Compare to Tony Awards which makes it clear why it's notable.
 * "The article is just a stub and needs to be fleshed out"
 * The article is a stub because there's little to flesh it out with as you demonstrated. I want to highlight this point: You tried to flesh it and I thank you for trying to improve the article but all that was added was trivial minutiae in 2 sentences: a list of everywhere the play has been performed and the non-notable award. Adding everywhere a play has been performed is superfluous information and likely should be excluded. Your attempt proves the point made in the nomination.
 * Disclaimer: The above "keep" commenter is an active member of WikiProject Musical Theatre, a sister of WikiProject Theatre. Both WikiProjects are dedicated to creating, improving, and like in this case, keeping theatre-related articles. They have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries.
 * This still fails GNG and still violates WP:NPLOT. The argument that is not what it purports to be, and attempt to improve the article demonstrated it more. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Saucysalsa30, please be WP:CIVIL. I have worked on numerous WP:FA and WP:GA articles on Wikipedia since 2006. Contrary to your accusation above, I have no "interest" in this article, other than to improve Wikipedia. Sometimes plays are notable, and sometimes they are not, in which case, I would argue to delete. The fact that I edit frequently in the area of theatre, and also sometimes contribute to AfDs, gives me experience in judging which plays may be notable and which ones are not. If one wants to suggest contributors here who may have an "interest" one way or the other, I note that you have been cautioned before about your behavior at AfD discussions, especially concerning Iraq-related articles, which this is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with the points made by Ssilvers above - looks a well-referenced article to me. Jack1956 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? What is "well-referenced" about a few redundant sources that say nothing more than a very short summary of the plot? This is extremely low-depth and non-notable. This is exactly what Wikipedia is not. See WP:NPLOT. Ssilver's case was spurious and picked apart. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion is not based on the current state of the article, but notability as determined by the information available in the sources, and searches show a number of unused sources that show this easily passes GNG. These include:
 * There is also discussion of the work in the following books
 * I would say that not only is there enough to pass GNG, there is probably enough to get a decent GA out of it - possibly more if I turn to the whole range of sources dealing with literature and the theatre that I can access. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat Please re-read the nomination. Thorough WP:BEFORE was done. I'm well aware it's not based on the current state of the article and I saw almost every source you listed in my research. I checked each source you listed again and they have about as much depth, a couple less, a couple a little more, as existing sources on the article, that is, still low depth and no evidence of notability. Like the Montreal Gazette article and the other articles, which is just another plot summary. Some of these are not WP:RS to begin with, like whatever "Independent Extra" is.
 * Worse, a couple of your sources don't even talk about this play at all. Example: From Randall's 9/11 and the Literature of Terror, the book talks about a New Yorker article by Martin Amis called "In the Palace of the End" that has no relation to the play. I mentioned in the nom there are other works that have similar titles but have nothing to do with this play. Why make a disingenuous case?
 * No, it doesn't pass GNG, and misrepresenting sources, like including sources that aren't about this play anywhere, doesn't inspire much confidence. The "decent GA" statement is absurd but the humor is appreciated. A lack of depth doesn't meet GNG, and furthermore don't demonstrate notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. You do not need to WP:BLUDGEON every comment here.
 * 2. Don't ever accuse me of misrepresenting sources or of being disingenuous: try that again and you'll have a blast of base and industrial Anglo-Saxon in response to such uncivil slurs. The Randall book also refers to part of Thompson's work on page 148, albeit briefly. That makes a lie of your claim that "a couple of your sources don't even talk about this play at all". I stand by the list of sources above, and this was after only a brief look, without looking at more specialist sources.
 * 3. You speak from a position of ignorance when dismissing the sources ("like whatever "Independent Extra" is"): it's a supplement to a UK broadsheet, a long-standing reliable source.
 * I stand by my !Keep vote, and my opinion that this passes GNG. Your "opinion" on the sources is noted and refuted, as is the pointy nonsense in your last couple of sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: it is also inappropriate to state that WikiProjects "have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries": that is untrue, and you should strike the italicised part of the comment accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that not only is there enough to pass GNG, there is probably enough to get a decent GA out of it - possibly more if I turn to the whole range of sources dealing with literature and the theatre that I can access. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat Please re-read the nomination. Thorough WP:BEFORE was done. I'm well aware it's not based on the current state of the article and I saw almost every source you listed in my research. I checked each source you listed again and they have about as much depth, a couple less, a couple a little more, as existing sources on the article, that is, still low depth and no evidence of notability. Like the Montreal Gazette article and the other articles, which is just another plot summary. Some of these are not WP:RS to begin with, like whatever "Independent Extra" is.
 * Worse, a couple of your sources don't even talk about this play at all. Example: From Randall's 9/11 and the Literature of Terror, the book talks about a New Yorker article by Martin Amis called "In the Palace of the End" that has no relation to the play. I mentioned in the nom there are other works that have similar titles but have nothing to do with this play. Why make a disingenuous case?
 * No, it doesn't pass GNG, and misrepresenting sources, like including sources that aren't about this play anywhere, doesn't inspire much confidence. The "decent GA" statement is absurd but the humor is appreciated. A lack of depth doesn't meet GNG, and furthermore don't demonstrate notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. You do not need to WP:BLUDGEON every comment here.
 * 2. Don't ever accuse me of misrepresenting sources or of being disingenuous: try that again and you'll have a blast of base and industrial Anglo-Saxon in response to such uncivil slurs. The Randall book also refers to part of Thompson's work on page 148, albeit briefly. That makes a lie of your claim that "a couple of your sources don't even talk about this play at all". I stand by the list of sources above, and this was after only a brief look, without looking at more specialist sources.
 * 3. You speak from a position of ignorance when dismissing the sources ("like whatever "Independent Extra" is"): it's a supplement to a UK broadsheet, a long-standing reliable source.
 * I stand by my !Keep vote, and my opinion that this passes GNG. Your "opinion" on the sources is noted and refuted, as is the pointy nonsense in your last couple of sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: it is also inappropriate to state that WikiProjects "have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries": that is untrue, and you should strike the italicised part of the comment accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: As an FYI, concerns about Saucysalsa30 bludgeoning discussions have been raised before. I have now warned Saucysalsa30 on their talk page not to continue this behavior. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI: This is a clear mispresentation. SouthernNights is someone who has hounded me across multiple pages when I reported an acquaintance of theirs to ANI for bludgeoning, edit warring including breaking 3RR, and repeated personal attacks. Instead of doing what any fair admin would do and warn or reprimand the editor engaging for multiple days in clearly disruptive behavior, SouthernNights attempted to turn the ANI on me. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We can always open a thread at ANI based on your accusations and see how that turns out for you? If you don’t want to do that, then it’s probably best not to cast aspersions on other editors. Once again I advise you to backpedal and treat people with some degree of politeness. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since in response to my warning Saucysalsa30 made false allegations against my work as both an editor and an admin, I have started an ANI discussion on this matter.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per SchroCat -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2023 (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.