Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poppentheater


 * 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 endorse speedy deletion. It is clear that the article is written by a confused creator who mistook the Dutch word Poppentheater as the proper name of a group of people. Since "puppet theatre" is a general concept rather than a proper name, a redirect is not created. I'm glad someone picked up this mistake after 6 years. Deryck C. 11:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Poppentheater

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This was nominated for speedy deletion by Bermond with the following rationale:"This article is nonsense due to an incorrect translation of Dutch language. The only article that linked here (until last minute; I just corrected it), is the Dutch Erasmus Prize. However, 'nl:Poppentheater' is Dutch language voor 'en:Puppetry', or 'puppet theatre' if you wish. So 'Poppentheater' wasn't the winner of the Erasmusprize in 1978, but the theme of that year. The winners in 1978 were 'La Marionettistica', 'Ţăndărică', 'Théatre du Papier' and 'Bread and Puppet'"Obviously this isn't a valid speedy deletion rationale (especially for an article that's been around since 2006), but because of the nature of the allegations and my complete unfamiliarity with the subject, I didn't want to abandon it after declining the speedy, so here we are. I am neutral in this nomination. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the content fork with Puppetry, and observe that puppetry as an art, or concept, received the attention of the Praemium Erasmianum Foundation for its 'exceptional contributions' to European culture, then include an immediate reference, an explanation of the significance of the Erasmus Prize, and elaborate on the individual recipients where possible. Mephistophelian (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as excellently indicated by Mephistophelian. --Lambiam 11:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete resulting redirect: I agree with Mephistophelian that the contents (such as it is) belongs in the Puppetry article. But if you do a regular merge, you will be left with a redirect page for "poppentheater", which is nothing in English (not even a valid search term). So there should be no resulting redirect in this case. -- BenTels (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no can do. "Merge and delete" creates WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia's licensing requires that the attribution remain intact, so if a merge is peformed a redirect must remain. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hmmm. That is very unfortunate. Well, I guess it will just have to be the merge then (although you'd almost be tempted to go for delete instead). -- BenTels (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For a user who encounters the term poppentheater and, not knowing what it means, looks it up on Wikipedia, to be redirected to Puppetry makes some sense. Although they may not immediately see the connection, they will then probably figure out that the term means "puppet theatre" in some language. So leaving a redirect is no big deal. --Lambiam 23:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Leaving it a redirect to puppetry isn't a good idea, because "poppentheater" is not English, neither a name. "Poppentheater" is Dutch for "puppetry". In the most extreme case, one could rename the article name in "Erasmusprize 1978", which is reflected by the content of the article. Then the intro should be rewritten too. Nevertheless, it's very strange to have an article on one Erasmusprize year only. Bermond (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion - copy right violation. I just noticed that it was even copied from here and/or here Bermond (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The material that Mephistophelian proposes to merge is not in fact in this article, nor are there references. It's recognition can be written anew at the puppetry with no need for this article as a basis for that text which negates need for any redirect to remain as there is not attribution required.  -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2012 (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.