Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temptation Sordid, or, Virtue Rewarded


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Temptation Sordid, or, Virtue Rewarded

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable play, appears to have had some amateur productions but no reliable sources to support WP:GNG. PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Obviously performed by numerous different groups and it is listed at Amazon (though not available). Not a significant play though so perhaps it only deserves mention at the author's article (if there could be one) or at List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded". violet/riga (t) 08:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But nothing to establish notability. That is what is needed. "significant coverage in reliable sources", major awards, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would call the numerous dramatics societies as reasonable sources that the play has been performed quite a few times, but there a few (if any) non-performance sources. violet/riga (t) 13:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Amateur performances don't count at all towards notability and there are no references in the article that support any sort of notability. If some significant coverage of the play in verifiable and reliable sources can be produced then I can accept notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If a play has been performed by (hyperbole) 500 different amateur groups then that would go some way to support notability. My point is that this has clearly been performed by a number of different groups and is perhaps notable within such circles, but I am not saying that it is necessarily notable for anyone else.  violet/riga [talk] 09:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I would have considered merging this article to the author's page, but it does not yet exist. Claims of multiple performances by amateur groups, no sources to back up this claim, and cloudy language to describe the frequency of these performances (...not infrequently performed by amateur dramatics groups) leads me to support deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:09, 17 August 2011 (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.