Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Wedding (play)


 * 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. (non-admin closure). — Mythdon 23:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect Wedding (play)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing in this unsourced article that indicates this play is notable. I find it fascinating that one of the actors in one of the productions is the Duchess of Cambridge. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete there's a bit of coverage by the New York Times, but significant coverage is needed, and frankly I'm not seeing it. I can however see some regional level reviews, so this could swing either way. I can't seem to find an explicit notability guideline for plays, so going by GNG and the similar NFILM, reviews by national level media organisations are needed, and as said I can't find any bar the NY Times. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'd suggest the tag for sources is enough. A play that's had that many different productions with different casts ought to prevent a deletion for the time being.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "So, you wake up on the morning of your wedding and can't fig-u re out how that pretty stranger ended up lying beside you. You know things can only go downhill from there, right? Is there a way for a play built on that premise to be funny? Well, yes, but only under special circumstances, few of which are present in Domino Theatre's production of Perfect Wedding. The play was written by British playwright and actor Robin Hawdon in 1994, and it appears to be an attempt to update the British bedroom farce. I say appears because a typical bedroom farce has lots of slammed doors and people dashing from room to room. Perfect Weddingdoesn't have these staples. Maybe the playwright thought all that stuff was too obvious. Mind you, he borrows the bedroom farce tool of mistaken identities in a bid to enhance laughter. Too bad he also didn't borrow the slew of one-liners and double-entendres that are the bedroom farce's stock in trade."   </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Perfect Wedding to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.