Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Awakening


 * 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 speedy keep. Nominator is requesting cleanup, not deletion, and no one has advocated a delete position. AfD is not the forum for this (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri Talk 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Spring Awakening

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article's subject appears to be notable, but the article as written is very far from meeting Wikipedia's content guidelines. It appears to be more of a fan writeup than an encyclopedia entry. It also appears to be almost entirely written by anonymous/IP editors. I'd suggest the article be heavily truncated, preserving little more than the lead section. Pete (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepI disagree immensely with these sentiments. I do not think this article meets any criteria for deletion at all.  Because someone has issues with certain parts of the article, is a very bad reason to recommend something for deletion.  If there is a problem of it being more of a fan writeup, then there should be a neutrality marker, not a deletion marker.  If this is the case, then people should band together to edit it better.  However, this is not the case, and I feel that this is a well written and encyclopedic article, and I have no problems with the style.  It is foolish and frivolous to me that this article about a famous Tony Award winning musical, which is not an attack page, or in a foreign language, or copyright violation.  Maybe there is a copyright violation I am aware with, but otherwise, I find no basis for this article to be deleted at all. The reasons for nomination are based on things that should not lead to a deletion, and furthermore are not present in the article. 129.64.213.33 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment deletion is not being proposed so it shouldn't be listed here. Yes, it needs to be severely pruned.  Anyone can do it. Drawn Some (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2009 (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.