Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Onion Cellar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Onion Cellar

The Onion Cellar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested PROD. This play only opened last month. There hasn't been enough time for it to gain any sort of notability. Joyous! | Talk 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

All who express an opinion in this AfD are invited back on the fifth/last day, to see if any arguments presented have changed their mind, or raise new points for them to express. Lentower 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The time it opened shouldn't dictate notability. There are links in the article to several professional reviews, which I would say is an indication of notability. The article needs to be cleaned up and reformatted, but I do think there is potential for a solid topic here. Leebo86 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, I can't find anything that states that opening time is a criterion for deletion of an article about a play. If someone wrote a play for Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel and it opened tomorrow, an article written last week would not be deleted because there is "enough time for it to gain any sort of notability." unsigned comment was added by KP Botany (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep. Non-trivial media coverage and notable participants seem to lean towards a keep. It may seem a bit borderline on the guidelines, but doesn't really fail any content policies. Agent 86 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this seems familiar, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clockwork Waltz, a fan production vs. this by the original artist. --Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not a "fan production". The American Repetory Theather (A.R.T.) is one of the top regional theater companies in the US - recognized as such by Time Magazine, magazine[1] the NY Times, and others. And for several seasons, the A.R.T has worked with notable musical groups to co-develop and produce innovative musical theather. Lentower 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reviews in Variety and the Boston Globe prove notability.Eludium-q36 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An innovative work of drama that combines cutting edge music and theatre by two of America's most innovative cultural groups. A successful notable experiment according to the reviews. Can not be merged into either group's article, as it's a collaboration. The article could use more work. There are several articles in the media that notes much struggle between Palamer and the rest of the playwrights in the script's creation - a paragraph should be added on this with citations. Lentower 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I asked for an explanation of the policy whereby "opening time" is a criterion for deletion of an article about a play. I was given none. This is not a reason for deletion, it's simply a POV assertion. KP Botany 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As one of the contributors, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote, but I think this meets the three criteria for Wikipedia articles: neutral point of view, verifiability and not original research. In fact, with the 2nd, it is more than "verifiable"; it's actually "verified". The article makes refernces to "multiple, independent" sources and is about a performance of a band with a non-trivial importance at a university also of non-trivial importance. This, I think, gives it notability, although notability does not even have the same status as an obligatory criterion that the other three aspects I mentioned do have. Interlingua talk email 03:33, 13 January 2007 (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.