Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna


 * 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.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna

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

Non-notable play. Had a short run, is no longer running. Was speedied previously when obviously created by the writer and leading man. The recreated version was full of cherry picked review quotes leaving out critical sections. I've trimmed it back so it's not an obvious puff piece any more, but I still can't see any real notability. Blowdart | talk 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep All three references constitute significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:GNG beyond any doubt. Skomorokh  22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah but it doesn't meet WP:Fict: a work of fiction must be of particular cultural or historical significance which requires significant external sourcing for the work itself, well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline.. Reviews aren't significant, considering people are paid to review everything in the west end and nothing asserts particular cultural significance that I could find. --Blowdart | talk 23:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, FICT is not a Wikipedia guideline. WP:GNG is. Even then, the portion of FICT that precedes your excerpted quote reads "Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. However, some articles on fictional subjects may not meet the general notability guideline. These articles should meet three conditions:". Skomorokh  23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You accuse the article authors of using selective quotations, but your quotation from WP:FICT is outrageously selective. By starting from the middle of a sentence you made it appear as if it applies to complete works of fiction such as this subject, missing out "To justify articles on individual elements...". This article is about a complete work of fiction, not an individual element. And where in any guideline does in say that reviews are not significant? As long as they are from independent reliable sources they are just as valid for showing notability as any other type of article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this article sourcing two national newspapers (I see you have greatly reduced the quotations from them), two national magazines (one of which you have removed - Tatler), a national theatrical paper of great note in the UK (The Stage - quotes from which have been entirely removed) and the London free newspaper of greatest relevance (West End Extra - quotes from which you have removed). Of these, ONLY The Stage reviews all plays, and Michael Billington at The Guardian, who gave the play three-stars - is THE foremost critic in the country. NB This is the same number of stars as Billington gave Michael Frayn's last play Afterlife, ENB The Pendulum also got the same number of stars in the Sunday Times as that play. Perhaps my selection of quotes was too positive - I saw the play twice and happened to love it. When I recently met the author at a magazine's Christmas drinks for which he writes I asked him why it had no Wikipedia entry and told him to put one up. I later received an email from him saying he had, but after a conflict of interest had been pointed out, he had deleted his own entry and you had deleted the article on the play. I am afraid that what you have left as quotations are simply not representative of the general press, let alone the play itself. People were actually sobbing in that audience on the second night I went. Yours, James Egerton (james.egerton@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjimedge (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I couldn't find the stage review; I'm glad someone else has, and still haven't found the West End Extra on line at all. You were indeed, to my mind, very selective in the quotes, only using the positive and not anything negative - which were not representative either. The play author did indeed create an article for the play, himself, and his company, two of which were deleted on notability grounds. --Blowdart | talk 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have lengthened the Billington quote and added a link for his wiki page, as he deserves. I added the stage quote in its chronological place. I lengthened the time out quote to give the balance of the article, and added the Prospect link for their little piece on it. West End Extra is published by the Camden New Journal, but appears to have no online page. First Act's interview with the author is online, but probably does not merit inclusion. The conde naste publication Tatler does, but they do not publish online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjimedge (talk • contribs) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to Prospect because it's just recycling other reviews and the blog author states clearly he hasn't actually been to see the play. --Blowdart | talk 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability has been shown in the usual way, by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep any play that opens in a regular professional theater and is reviewed by the mainstream media is notable. The length of run, the quality, the possible COI of the article--all of these are irrelevant factors. DGG (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it meets notability requirements. Rosiestep (talk) 21:27, 14 January 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.