Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chutzpah a Go-Go

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chutzpah a Go-Go[edit]

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

Article about a play whose claim of notability ("one of the longest-running stage shows in Canadian theatre history") is unsourced and unverifiable, and whose sole source is its own self-published website about itself, being cited only to support its name. This is not how you source a play as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but I can't find any genuinely solid sourcing on either Google or ProQuest to salvage this with. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails WP:GNG and meets criteria for WP:CSD (spefiifcally, WP:A11). Obviously an attempt to self-promote. Adding a speedy delete template to the page incase an admin agrees. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Got a few Google hits, but nothing that proves notoriety. Speedy delete reccomendation still stands. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Arxiloxos on this: the coverage isn't strong enough to actually make it a keepable article for the purposes of AFD, but there is enough brief coverage of it to preclude speedying it. Speedy only applies under certain very specific and strict conditions, and even an obviously deletable article can still be non-speediable, and have to go to prod or AFD instead, if it doesn't fit any of those strict conditions. For instance, even if the intent here was obviously to increase the play's visibility for promotional purposes, the article isn't written in an overtly advertorial tone for the purposes of G11 — and A11 doesn't apply at all, because even if it isn't a notable thing it is a real thing and not an "invented" hoax that doesn't really exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources confirm that this play has been produced by stage companies in Toronto, Winnipeg,[1] and St. Paul.[2][3] This article is not appropriate for WP:A11 because it makes a "credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Whether it's notable remains to be seen; so far there doesn't seem to be as much online RS sourcing as one might expect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the main comments above. I can't find any reasonable indication of importance or reliable sources for this. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A few small theater productions alone doesn't convey notability, and I'm seeing any real sign of that. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 25 January 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.