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The result was Withdrawn, no need to prolong this. Fram (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Party piece

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:DICDEF (with the second part, about the "specialism", not even supported by the source given) with an utterly random (but 100% white British males) selection of examples does not an encyclopedia article make. Fram (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated within 46 minutes of creation when it is clearly still under construction. You should allow more time or prod instead. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Topic is notable - e.g. book on what seems to be the topic + sources presently in the article. Article seems to be evolving past a mere DICTDEF. Should not have entered mainspace in the state that it entered (keep it in draft, sandbox, whatever - put into mainspace when it passes NOT / notability in terms of sources). Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Topic may be notable, but article is extremely weak. Wrong definition (as said in my opening statement), a section on "origins" that just gives older examples, nothing actually about the origin. A "list of party pieces", which this seems to be, would be endless. An actual discussion of the function, origin, sociology of party pieces seems to be totally lacking and not really what the creator had in mind. Moving it to draft until it is somewhat ready for mainspace is an acceptable option. Fram (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is not incorrect. I say "It is usually the specialism of the performer" and Collins support that by saying "Someone's party piece is something that they often do to entertain people, especially at parties, for example singing a particular song or saying a particular poem." In other words it is their specialism. The examples further support that point, a poet performing his poem, a school teacher of physics reciting pi etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG and the subject has received detailed treatment in scholarly sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, checked and meets general notability guideline (GNG). There is book on the topic too.Whispyhistory (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been considerably expanded since being nominated. It is far than a mere dictionary definition, and there are numerous good references. Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevant for cultural history, and sourced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.