Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan Lake (Martins)


 * 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 delete. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Swan Lake (Martins)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

For those who don't know how Swan Lake works: most versions we see today shares similar choreography, especially the two lead dancers' parts, but choreographer / stagers can add some of their own choreography and make an alternate ending.

George Balanchine's version and Matthew Bourne's version have their own pages because they are significantly different from the classical version (I intend to rewrite / expand / cleanup the Balanchine version page at some point) I don't see why should the Martins staging have its own article as most of the information is covered on Swan Lake and List of productions of Swan Lake derived from its 1895 revival, and as far as I can tell, it's a version of the classical ballet.

And on the cast list of this article, it is impossible to record all of them as there are many revivals with a number of casts each run, and injuries can always alter the cast. Several lists of ballet casts are deleted after I nominated them. Corachow (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Further comment by nominator Upon further research, I discovered that the only main difference of the Martins version is everything is cramped into two acts. Corachow (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; the few cited performance reviews do not seem enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (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.