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 no consensus. Let's close this, if only for a very practical reason: I have never seen such a division in an AfD, of content contributors, FA writers and reviewers, and other experienced editors on both sides. There is no way in which this is going to close as anything but "no consensus", unless one throws a supervote into the mix.

Having said that, a few more remarks. One SPI is brought up; a related one is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Whether it matters that there are socking allegations or not (and I think Lukeno94 pointed this way) is another question.

Allow me a remark or two, since I don't think I can get away with a supervote and a close as "delete", nor do I want to. I think the delete voters (those commenting on the coverage, that this is average sourcing, etc) have a point, and a rationale is found in WP:NTOUR. But this is an FA and that changes much: even if FA does not equal speedy keep (Fanny Imlay, anyone").. WP:FAR has been suggested as a possible venue, and I agree that a careful review of the article, its sourcing, and perhaps its FA status is a good first stop. If the community agrees, for instance, that the article is not an FA, then that will make for a more streamlined deletion discusison.

In short, I'm closing this as No Consensus, without prejudice toward renonimation, and I thank you all for your input. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name[edit]

2012 tour of She Has a Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single tour of a regional dramatic production. It eludes me why this page should exist at all, as it appears to be promotional in bent. Nominated for deletion per WP:N and WP:NOT Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there is another article, curated exclusively by the same editor as this one, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_response_to_She_Has_a_Name. Said article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Should the critical response page be nominated for deletion separately?Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • With somewhat wider discussion here, I want to clarify my comments a bit. There are two reasons, in general, why subtopics get their own pages. First, if the core topic is too long, sections can be spun out to their own pages out of readability concerns. Second, if the subtopic is the subject of independent coverage such that it meets notability criteria on its own, then it warrants a page from first principles. When neither are true, we don't; that's part of what is implied by "notability is not inherited". Neither of these is true here. The core article is not too long to exist as a single topic—or, at least, would not be so if pared down appropriately. And the 2012 tour is not by any stretch of the imagination a separate topic from the play itself. Go ahead, look at the sources in the article. The reviews of the 2012 showings never talk about how these 2012 productions are somehow different from the (much more limited) 2011 productions. They are simply reviews of the play, written in the various (mostly local) newspapers where it was shown during that year.
This got through FA (with considerably difficulty, I'll note; it passed on the 3rd nomination, with what is not, historically-speaking, a well-attended discussion) because on its face, it's the sort of thing FAC encourages: exhaustively researched and with oodles of references. I know; I review at FAC when my schedule permits, and try my best to write for it as well. But FAC is poorly equipped to deal with structural questions such as should this article have existed in the first place. It's tooth fairy science. There's no separate topic here; there never was. Rather, this (and the critical reception article) are an effort to spread the topic of one small, mostly regionally-performed piece of fringe theater into a broader topic. A substantial amount of the content is duplicated between the three articles, as are a substantial number of the references, and for good reason: there should only be one topic here to begin with. Go read the parent article, and pretend there weren't "See also" links to its two subtopics whatsoever. There's nothing there that wants for comprehensiveness, nothing that should be merged in, even if some could be. And I'd be surprised if more than a handful of ultra-local references weren't already there as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If notability wasn't a question, then yes, you're obviously correct. However, my !vote was showing anyone who !voted keep based on the number of references, and the fact it was an FA, that doing so was a bit daft. It also gives a general analysis of how little notability this tour has, and how several sources are misrepresented in blatant ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually read the sources and you'll see that they absolutely do not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All touring productions of all plays always generate at least this much coverage. This one is in no way special in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could easily be an argument for aicles like this for all touring productins of all plays. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But a poor one. With vanishingly few exceptions (of which this article contains none), reviews, criticism, and commentary are not about the individual productions on their merits, but about the play itself. Even the most famous, most widely-performed modern stage performances such as Cats and Phantom of the Opera have never received that treatment (although their articles do list the various productions and discuss differences where relevant), because the different productions, in this context, are routine. That's most certainly true of regionally-performed Canadian fringe theater. It was performed in 2011. It was performed other places in 2012. All of that is part of the topic of the play, not a thing unto itself. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was only pointing out the fallacy in the argument: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Whether the article itself deserves to exist should be judged on its own merits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The volume of spinoff content about his works, regardless of whether it's warranted or excessive, has no bearing on whether his main BLP meets "good article" standards or not — so the quality assessments of that article are in no way affected by questions about whether this related but distinct spinoff article warrants inclusion or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's little doubt that the nominator is marginal at best; however, they do have an extremely valid point here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of FAR is to determine if an article no longer meets the FA criteria, not to determine if it should exist at all. If the consensus here is keep, the article is eligible to remain an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my recommendation to Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. However, if the article is kept, I think it should be sent to WP:FAR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would absolutely agree with that. It's just way too promotional and bloated to be a FA, and I seriously doubt it's really a GA at this point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you've read any of the references properly based on this !vote. Almost all of them talk solely about the show and not the tour. As multiple people have stated, it being an FA does not give it a free pass whatsoever, and sheer weight of references isn't valid either. Nor is any perceived "injustice" relevant. Yes, the nominator is dodgy, but the actual discussion is a valid one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your comment; you are right, many sources are solely about the show, however I did find many (ten or more) sources that verify the notability of the tour. FYI, I wish to say that I respect the editors who recognize this article as FA, that I myself am not interested in this featured/good topic, and that regarding Neelix, he and I have crossed swords before and so I am not a fanboy, but I do respect him and trust him as a scholar. I still believe the article can exist on its own and as part of a well-researched topic. I hope someone can investigate the motivations of the nominator. Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)[reply]
  • At least you've bothered to go beyond "Keep, it's an FA therefore it's fine" Prhartcom, which several people haven't. I strongly disagree with your interpretation here, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the number of sources has been cited several times as evidence that the article should be kept, but keep in mind that most of the sources are very small local newspapers, and any regional production is likely to get similar amounts of coverage on that scale. We are not talking about widespread media coverage at a national or international level, or a larger cultural impact. We are talking about local newspapers covering what was likely the only theatrical production running in their various small towns at any given time - of course these tiny newspapers covered this play! Does this mean there should be an article for each yearly tour of every regional production of every play ever?Wobzrem (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, a lot of keep voters have arguments like WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES... troll elsewhere, please. It absolutely does not pass GNG; a thousand routine local sources wouldn't make it pass, let alone the handful that actually discuss the tour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks will not advance your case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it to be a fairly accurate assessment of your comment, so no, it isn't a personal attack. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge any relevant bits to parent article. FA status does not relate to notability. I think Squeamish Ossifrage makes the most salient points about how this article gives undue weight to a marginal aspect of an otherwise notable topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm curious: what do you mean by "balanced"? I fail to see how merging would what essentially be a very small amount of information (when the overlap is discarded) would "destroy two articles". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Basically everything has been covered by users smarter than myself, but I wanted to add a few things. Basically the only arguments in its favor revolve entirely around the fact that it is well sourced. I agree that the sourcing is meticulous and clearly required lots of research and hard work. This isn't being debated, and I do understand the reluctance to delete an article that someone clearly put a lot of time and effort into. I was actually initially leaning towards "keep" on that basis alone when I stumbled onto this discussion. However, the issue is far more structural and concerns whether or not this article adds information necessary to understand the original article, or adds information that is deserving of its own article. As for the former, the original article is incredibly detailed and informative and conveys more than enough information to provide a reader with clear understanding of both the initial 2011 and later 2012 performances of the play. Anyone wishing to learn about "She Has a Name" will be able to walk away from the original article fully informed without leaving any major gaps in knowledge left open. As for the latter, is the article necessary on its own because it is a significant topic in its own right, this is largely self-evident and has been explained fairly well by others. The fact that the article largely repeats large sections of "She Has a Name" by itself refutes the argument that this subject is necessary or notable in a vacuum. It is highly unlikely that a reader would search for this article without first reading the original, and as discussed, the original covers the information sufficiently and thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I think the major issue is that the level of detail is unnecessary as the initial article already covers the relevant information. Again, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am kind of confused as to why most of the debate here seems to not be defending the content of the article in defending its existence but just the number of sources. It seems like the length and detail are just kind of being accepted on their face rather than being explored more deeply. Actually reading both articles back to back it seems like most of the information is repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs)

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.
More