Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telegraphing (entertainment)


 * 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   merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Telegraphing (entertainment)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-referenced dicdef, essentially unchanged since creation in 2007 - not an encyclopaedic entry. Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreferenced. There is nothing on this on JSTOR, Scholar, News, Books, actually all I can find is a few Dictionary entries.  The article could be deleted under the rational of WP:DICTIONARY.  -Aaron Booth (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 06:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirect to Foreshadowing, content has been merged there. - telegraphing+plot returns lots of search returns for books describing precisely this term as contrasted with foreshadowing. Diego (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is not a notable term in the dramatic arts. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to confound notable with important. It has sources, it's notable.Diego (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then it would be more appropriate to transwiki this topic to wictionary - at most this seems to be informal actor's jargon for signifying plot element non-verbally. A simple definition would suffice. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, it has some encyclopedic content that would be lost. If it's transwikied, the name should be redirected to Telegraph (disambiguation) and that page should include the Wictionary box for the term. But I think the stub has potential, see the similar Telegraphing (sports). Diego (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be prepared to change my mind if you could convince me that this was a notable topic in theatre-craft / acting, something that had the potential to be worked up into a decent article. I'm not sufficiently educated in the dramatic arts to know this for sure but the lack of any major articles on the subject (just casual usage) suggests that we really would not loose much with a transwiki. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided several more references that directly define and analyze the term as a literary device both in theatre and writing, making it verifiable. At the very least the content should be preserved, probably merging it with Telegraphing (sports) (which should then be renamed to remove the wp:PRECISION title) given that the meanings are clearly related. Diego (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are going to keep it then please do not merge it with a sports article! --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are merged it won't be a sports article, it will be a "communicating future intentions with gestures" article with two subsections. But hey, you're the one willing to change the current structure. Diego (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought of an alternate solution - You can merge this article to a section in Foreshadowing and create a "redirect with possibilities" to that section, if you don't think it merits a stand-alone article. The concept is relevant there and we have reliable sources connecting both topics. What do you think? Diego (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems sensible. It's not exactly the same thing as foreshadowing, however it's very similar. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The alternate solution sounds fine to me.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If Diego is willing to execute his proposal I'd be happy to go with his plan (and change my vote), otherwise if nobody is going to volunteer to change the article I think we'd be better off without it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Diego (talk) 21:17, 19 March 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.