Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entrance of the Gladiators (radio drama)

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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance of the Gladiators (radio drama)

Seems to fail WP:N. A quick Google search shows no particular mention outside something about one of the voice actresses. All content edits were done by what appears to be the writer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

although i can see melodia's point that this has been put up by the writer, it is not self publicizing but rather a simple factual account of an event.

i have seen dozens of far worse examples of this that have been extant for years (i generally suggest editing rather than extinction) it seems to me that this policy is not being carried out evenly and that is very easy for some people just to go round tearing down other people's work - if it had not been for my careful disambiguation, melodia's interest in circus music would not have even led her here - no-one else seems to think the article inappropriate and deletion rather that reworking seems a bit harsh as a first step - perhaps she does not consider the work of lesser-known artists worthy of inclusion here or perhaps i am mistaken in thinking wikipedia a democratic forum. i hope melody's articles stand up to equal scrutiny - i shall have fun looking - the use of english grammar on her talk page suggests that there is plenty of scope for improvement.

i agree that this article may not be of interest to great number of people but that is not the point of wikipedia - anyone interested in british radio drama that is not mainstream will tell you that it is a struggle to find online information regarding audio theatre not output by the bbc

is it not customary to inform the author if his or her work is being considered for deletion? obviously not --kyle mew 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's customary, but I figure you'd easily see it within short order. But anyway, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it doesn't matter 'why' I found it. I waited quite a while before listing it on AFD, and if I'm wrong, others will note it. To ME it seems like someone trying to get their unnotable work on WP -- in fact, it could probably have been speedy'd, but I skipped that step since I knew you'd probably remove it right away. And if you're going to call someone out on their grammar, using horrid capitalization isn't the best idea. Plus, I never claimed I was a good writer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all fair points - --kyle mew 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

Delete - fails to establish notability through reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no citations from reliable sources. This borders on speedy deletion territory. B.Wind (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2008 (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.