Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Oberacker


 * 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__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Richard Oberacker

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

Relatively new article on subject which I'd argue fails to meet criteria of GNG guidelines. A brief google search reveals little outside being mentioned as being involved in a couple of musicals, and doesn't offer much with which to expand the article beyond its present incredibly unsourced stub state. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre,  and United States of America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE, which says that a creative professional (such as a composer and playwright) is notable if he has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work or if his work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. Also meets WP:GNG which says that subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are notable. The following sources demonstrate that Oberacker meets both of these standards.
 * (review of Ace (musical))
 * (review of Ace (musical))
 * (review of Bandstand (musical)}}
 * Jfire (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that list (and the edits to the article you made) very much show there isn't anything close to reaching "significant" work or coverage of the level of warranting a separate article at this point. The most heavily sourced are reviews for two musicals that already have their own articles (and frankly need more detailed review sections) so are most appropriately placed there, which leaves a BLP stub that consists of new material that amounts to a single award they won and a one word mention of another musical they did an adaption of. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (review of Bandstand (musical)}}
 * Jfire (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that list (and the edits to the article you made) very much show there isn't anything close to reaching "significant" work or coverage of the level of warranting a separate article at this point. The most heavily sourced are reviews for two musicals that already have their own articles (and frankly need more detailed review sections) so are most appropriately placed there, which leaves a BLP stub that consists of new material that amounts to a single award they won and a one word mention of another musical they did an adaption of. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that list (and the edits to the article you made) very much show there isn't anything close to reaching "significant" work or coverage of the level of warranting a separate article at this point. The most heavily sourced are reviews for two musicals that already have their own articles (and frankly need more detailed review sections) so are most appropriately placed there, which leaves a BLP stub that consists of new material that amounts to a single award they won and a one word mention of another musical they did an adaption of. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Jfire in this discussion such as the significant coverage about him in the Cincinatti Enquiror and lengthy reviews of his works which together amounts to a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (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.