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. ansh666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Demoiselle de magasin[edit]

La Demoiselle de magasin (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)

Not encyclopedic. A one-line article, notability close to zero, and nearly 8 years of being a useless stub.
The article had a grand total of 177 views for the entire year of 2017, and those probably mostly due to error by people looking for the painting, not this play.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And not just articles about obscure literary works; he also seemed to have taken pride in creating an article for nearly every house in Serbia.
: e.g. Kravlji Do which is village w. a population of 355 people.
Do you know of a way to automate cleaning up this mess?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Maybe everything can be draftified just like that happened to 02Blythed's cricket stubs. I don't see that happen to the village stubs though (not the village parts which you mentioned), as there are too many it exists people who will defend those stubs. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation about Serbian villages etc doesn't belong on this particular page, but yes, populated places are presumed notable according to WP:GEOLAND, so you could probably expect some people quoting policy. Mortee (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, many sources from 1913 would not be available online (yet).96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not proof of notability, you're jumping to conclusion.
"Along Came Ruth" is a silent movie, a MGM production from 1924 (and it's also a lost movie).
An American silent movie, can not be auto-equated with a French play.
It's perfectly fair to mention the French play in the article for "Along Came Ruth", but the French play itself needs its notability proven.
(Parents also don't automatically become notable, just because their children gains notability.)
-- DexterPointy (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.