Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seared (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. After extended discussion, it is clear that consensus to delete will not emerge. No new comments this calendar month. bd2412 T 01:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Seared (play)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a theatrical play, without a particularly strong claim of notability or all that much in the way of reliable source coverage. Mostly this seems to exist for advertorial rather than encyclopedic reasons -- apart from stating that this exists and giving a capsule summary of its plot, the bulk of the content here consists of quotes from theatre critics reviews -- of which two of the three are from local newspapers and show no evidence that the play has attracted wider notice, while the third is from a non-notable WordPress blog. And the creator has an apparent conflict of interest with regard to the theatre that staged it, to boot. Basically, nothing here is enough to justify a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to the author Theresa Rebeck (notable for other work) would be better than deletion. The sources are all local press, although local to the SF area is better than notable to some small town. Theatre Dogs, although a blog, is written by an experienced professional theatre critic so per WP:USERGENERATED it might be considered a reliable source even if it doesn't carry as much weight as a newspaper review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a review in the SF Examiner as well as other more local/bloggy sites and a radio review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It has a paragraph in the New York Times [here https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/theater/a-new-theater-season-of-hitting-the-boards-hard-from-broadway-to-oregon.html] as one of maybe 50 or so shows that were being produced across the US in 2016-17. Plus a review in the San Franciso Chronicle and lots of other coverage online in SFGate, which are clearly not just some small town local paper. Boneymau (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to easily meet the notability requirements. Although most coverage is local, it's from reliable sources and is covered in a ton of different places (see this google search here as well: ). Easily meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2017 (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.