Jump to content

User talk:MusicMaker5376/Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of AfDs

[edit]

The only one of those I object to is the list. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Nights should be a better article - it's still doing good business touring the UK. Equally, Just So had quite a bit of buzz a couple of years ago (it's by the guys who did the new music for Mary Poppins and starred John Barrowman and various other "names" when it premiered at a festival somewhere. I'll take a look at bulking the two of them out - Just So, certainly. I'm not sure what I can say about Boogie Nights...
The rest of the list I agree with, though... - Dafyd 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little torn about Boogie Nights. The only problem with it is that it doesn't really assert notability -- I know I've heard something about it, but the article doesn't tell me what. Right now the article isn't much more than a definition. I'll probably leave it. Who knows. —  MusicMaker 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Info

[edit]

I'm finding a few things about some articles:

As an author of an original musical myself, I am swayed to caution you upon nominating these articles for deletion. Yes, a few of them do not have true notability. But simply because the article itself does not express notability, does not mean a musical is not notable. Honestly, I think as part of WikiProject Musical Theatre's goal, we should not delete any musical theatre articles unless they are tragically not-noteworthy. Instead, we should do the best we can to find the information about the articles we find. If somebody knew enough about the musical to start the article and it wasn't speeded then there must be some info out there about it.

Just expressin' my thoughts. Not tryin' to step on your toes or anything. I'll be okay with whatever action you choose :-D. --omtay38 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good, but I suggest you read WP:NOTE. An article needs to assert notability, for one. Secondly, anything that has only achieved a production on the amateur level is not notable, unless it's been widely performed. If something has only been performed professionally in one city, it, in my opinion, is not notable. My criterion is that the composition must have achieved either a production in a Broadway-sized theatre in a respectable theater city (Toronto, San Diego, London, New York, Sydney, Melbourne mainly...) or an off-Broadway or off-West End production. The mere existence of a musical is not enough for its inclusion in WP. I'm in the process of writing several musicals, and I don't think ANY of them deserve inclusion on WP. Yet.... But, you know, feel free to weigh in at the AfDs. —  MusicMaker 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw -- Sam French will represent anything. Just because the rights are held by a leasing agent doesn't make it notable. —  MusicMaker 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree that any production must play in a respectable theatre city to be notable. According to that logic, all musical productions in New York are notable and, well, that's very many to say the least. Furthermore, your logic excludes musicals that have flopped, or have cult status. An example, our only GA article (not GA by us) A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant started Off-Off-Broadway and made its way up to Off-Broadway. Never to broadway and, to be honest, outside of working on this project I had never heard of it before. The reason I bring this whole subject up is because I really don't think we have any need to delete any articles at all based on Notability. Take a look at all the articles tagged by WikiProject Film. By my count there must be over 15000 articles there. They didn't get that way by deleting articles on films, they got that way by improving articles on films. As you said, I do have the ability to weight in at the AfD but what really worries me is the possibility of more articles being deleted in the name of this WikiProject. From what I've seen of WikiProjects (and I've been through quite a few by now) I have found none that delete articles in their subject matter in any other way than individually under very special circumstances. --omtay38 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you: WP doesn't always give me a banner when messages are left on this page.
Yes, according to that logic, all musical productions that play New York are notable. Do you have ANY IDEA how difficult it is to get a production mounted in NY, even Off-off-Broadway? An Off-off-Broadway production in NY is the equivalent of a 1000-seat theater in Philly. Even productions that are part of the Fringe Festival in NY (and, I think, Edinburgh...) are notable.
In order to lend any credence whatsoever to our WikiProject, we have to have some criteria for inclusion. I agree the Film project has many more articles; they also have many more participants. Furthermore, many MANY more movies get produced than do musicals.
So, weigh in at the AfDs. Like I said on the talk page for the project, I'm really trying to ascertain what the WP crowd will consider notable for musicals and what it will not. —  MusicMaker 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at WP:NOTE and must admit you are probably right and many of these articles will get deleted. If that is the consensus, they probably deserve to. However, I would strongly discourage any other member of this WikiProject to nominate for deletion any more articles. I personlay think it is very much against this project's goals to "weed" wikipedia of non-notable musical theatre productions. I say if one is found, place {{tllNotability} on it and let it be. Somebody else can take care of it later. I really thing we should strive to make coverage more complete not concise. Anyway, that's about it. I think I'm going to abstain from voting. The articles are, for the most part, not notable and I'd be wasting my breath. Plus I really don't want to sound any more lecture-y than I already do :-). As always, this is just my opinion. I respect yours very much, just wanted to voice mine too. --omtay38 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with MusicMaker. Omtay, look at WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG. If a musical has never had a professional production, and it is just churned out by one of these publishers for school or dinner theatre productions, especially if there aren't even any reviews (other than the school paper) or other indicia of notability, then I think it should be deleted. No disrespect intended to the authors: If, some day, the production gets some professional productions and reviews, it will be easier to write an encyclopedic article. Having all these awful, uncited articles about non-notable musicals hurts the project's and Wikipedia's reputation. The same goes for student and communtiy theatre groups. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down

[edit]

Experience has shown that it's hard for AFD regulars to cope with more than 10 nominations from any one person on a specific subject on the same day. Please try to space out your nominations, doing about 10 per day and making a queue for the next day in your user space. Thanks for cleaning out the bad articles! YechielMan 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MusicMaker5376/Articles_for_deletion&oldid=139537635"