Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to My Name is Rachel Corrie. I can't enact my close here, but I will review this article in 7 days, and force redirection at that time - merging can still take place after that, but it will be easier if you get it done soon Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances[edit]

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This list is a rather odd one. We have an article on the play itself (My Name is Rachel Corrie) that has extensive mention of the more notable of the stagings of this minor play. A list of every single staging of a play, major or minor (think of the nightmare List of Hamlet performances would be), does not make any encyclopedic sense. It's indiscriminate, directory-type information with no context. To the "but it does no harm" folks, I would disagree. "Merge" is also a bad result here. The major stagings of this play are already covered in the main article -- a regurgitating of every minor staging of this play is trivia of no rational use to a reader. If wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia that has some discrimination, clutter like this does harm over time to the project as a whole. After deletion, would have no opposition to a redirect to My Name is Rachel Corrie.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So Rachel Corrie is an ultimate threat to all wikipedia project, because it lists songs about Rachel Corrie or stagings of My Name is Rachel Corrie right.
  • And even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" deserves a space in Wikipedia after multiple reviews, and is considered not trivia, but staging list of an international theater production is trivia.
  • 'All the productions are verifiable, and the list build upon that references. Some stagings, especially the first ones has more coverage reasonably. Theatre reviewers don't write separate critic for every other theater's staging, notability guidelines doesn't require separete notability for every single piece in an list. Like you don't have to find separete notability reference for an albums each song.' Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would quite like to see a list of the major productions of Hamlet somewhere. Citius Altius (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, major might be doable, though of course one would have to define "major." I'm guessing a reasonable standard would lead to 20-40 -- obviously the premeir, Olivier's first performance, stagings that broke new ground in one way or another. It would also require extensive scholarship. My bet is hamlet's "major stagings" would be doable, given all the ink that's been spilled over the play for centuries.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a real nightmare for people who actually afraid of gathered encyclopedic info based on extensive research like the list of plays. So instead not reading them, they would nominate it for deletion possibly.
I don't know if you ever watched a theater. But theater productions are localized, unless it travels through cities on tours. Most of the plays and theater's in the list has enough notability and coverage in the first place. A theatre is not a movie, they don't play every play, they judge it then play. My Name is Rachel Corrie play is already notable, and got reviewed by multiple sources including NY Times, Guardian and so on you cannot expect big theater critics to go every single staging, and write a new critic separately. Requiring high coverage in internet for every theater staging is not reasonable.Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incapable of easily being sourced, and why can't people grasp that "is" is supposed to be capitalized in titles? They never do that with other two- and three-letter words like "my". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand your deletion reason at all. Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT. Play is notable, list of performances (including those that got canceled!) most definitely isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually checked the refences at all, because you claim non-notability of some high notability references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "notable reference". References are either about notable subjects, or they are not. The quality and number of references can indicate the notability of a subject. In this case, however, this is a list of performances. There is nothing notable about a list of performances. Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article. Sorry, but there is no reasonable rationale for keeping cruft like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting the case. The article is about stagings of My Name is Rachel Corrie and most of the staging info is based on reliable sources (published newspapers and leading review sites) so the notability of the subject is high. The list of performances article needs verifiable references, and in this case the staging info is verifiable. "Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article." no they don't have their "own" article, this is a collected staging info article like any other table articles, such as List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra in Category:Opera-related lists Kasaalan (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and build and develop. Notability of this list in how many times the shows were cancelled specifically because of conflict over the political issues involved. If it is trimmed down or merged than something specific should be mentioned of how many times the show was cancelled because of the conflict about the controversial subject matter. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all the commentors I completely revised the references and named all of them instead numbers, so people can check better of the notability of the references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I disagree with Scjessey. If "Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article" then a list is precisely where they should go. Of course completely non-notable performances should be removed. Citius Altius (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They claim non notability for the performances, but most of the performances already referenced by newspapers and reliable theatre critic sites. I am not sure if delete commenters did check the reference list, but after they commented I fully named the reference list, so it is easy to tell the references are mainly above average quality, so no need to delete the article at all. You may check mostly high quality Article References yourself. Kasaalan (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of these performances don't seem notable. This looks like listcruft to me. AniMatedraw 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the theaters (especially international ones) the stages the play are notable themselves in the first place and even have devoted wikipedia articles, also lots of the references are based on published international or local daily newspapers and leading theartre review sites. Did you actually count before claiming "most" or just figuring and rounding them out according to your own like. Kasaalan (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really sure what you try to claim. "list of performances" articles in wikipedia result 49354 pages. There are countless articles on lists of performances under various titles. List of performances on Top of the Pops, List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra, List of Judy Garland performances, List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods, List of Barbra Streisand tours and live performances, Cocteau Twins performances, Fred Astaire chronology of performances, Vivien Leigh chronology of stage and film performances, List of performers at the Metropolitan Opera the list goes on to near 50 k articles. Kasaalan (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory clearly refers: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)" Kasaalan (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main play article. a list of performances may be useful there and let them weed out which ones are noatable or not. That article is small enough that having a list is fine. No need for deleting when merge will do. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Benjeboi. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Striking. See more detailed rationale below. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge And maybe a list of performances of "Much Ado About Nothing" might be next. PacificBoy 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of adaptations of Shakespearean plays perfectly fine article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a really good article on this topic is Hamlet in performance. However, these playwrights aint shakespeare, this play aint hamlet, and there is nothing that establishes independent notability for every time this play has been performed. There is a rather vast recounting (past all due weight, but whatever) of stagings of this play in the "Other stagings" section [1] of the My Name is Rachel Corrie article and this is an indiscriminate content fork at best.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not a nightmare, but a good article then. I created the list of performances article to leave only most important stagings in play page, and rest here, the recounting plays you referred were not added by me anyway. Also, people claimed in the past, the play is not notable at all or no good references available on staging performances, so I created a list of them in relevant discussion pages, then converted that info into an article. We can merge the content, but coming here telling references isn't good or most of the stagings isn't notable is like a true joke. Most of the theaters are notable themselves, and theaters are not movie theaters, they pick plays, evaulate them, study them then they perform them, as I clearly showed in Article References most of the stagings have enough notability to be mentioned anyway. So you should make some effort and mark which stagings you find not notable in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five of those mentioned in the My Name is Rachel Corrie article are the notable ones. I won't bother to edit the rest of it out of that article as i don't see it as a point worth fighting over.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are just admitting you didn't even bothered to check the two articles. Much more than 5 plays are notable by solid references and in any means. Even more than 5 international plays were staged in highly notable theatres. Kasaalan (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly checked out both articles. All i'm admitting is that i have much higher standards in regards to notability than you do. Yes, i find "The Kitchen & Roundhouse Theatre in Silver Spring, Maryland, staged a one-time performance on July 21, 2007. It was directed by Lise Bruneau and featured Mindy Woodhead as Rachel" to be the height of trivia. I understand you disagree -- but our disagreement says nothing about what i have or have not read or considered.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You reversing the case. You claimed only 5 plays were notable so I claimed you didn't check the articles correctly, because there are definately more than 5 plays staged in highly notable theatres. But now you claiming some plays are not notable, that is only twist of words. Kasaalan (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't understand the meaning of the word notable has nothing to do with my "twisting" anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the "high notability" which you don't require for rest of the 50.000 lists in wikipedia, that you ask when it cames for Rachel Corrie has nothing to do with twist. Kasaalan (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you seeking here? You keep hurling accusations at me ("didn't even bother to check" "only twist (sic) of words") when in fact we simply disagree. I believe an indiscriminate list of every performance of this play (as i would even for major world plays like, as we discussed, hamlet) fails the GNG and a number of things that wikipedia is not. I understand that you disagree. I certainly believe that many of the lists on wikipedia are inappropriate for inclusion; many are also appropriate for inclusion. They need to be evaluated each on their merits. This one, which we are evaluating here and now is, in my analysis, a clear fail. I think merger is a bad idea since, after all, 850 words (yes i cut and pasted into Word and counted) in the target article (My Name is Rachel Corrie) are already devoted to various stagings -- at least 16 of them by my count. I would go on to further argue (or "twist" in your view) that mentioning 16 stagings of this play in the target article is already past all due weight. This list we are evaluating, as i have argued already, is at best a content fork from the main article on this minor play.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stagings are in international notable theatres. Actual theatres are not movie theatres, they select plays by jury and perform them after long time preparations. So your claim fails on "notability" in the first place. Also most of the references and critics I provided are from daily printed newspapers and magazines. List articles has other "notability" guidelines, and the notability guidelines you refer are actually for "seperate page" articles. In a list type article, not all items should have "seperate high notability". That is why there are near 50 thousand list articles in wikipedia as I listed above. Throwing guidelines and actually referring them are 2 different issues. Kasaalan (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link showing that "list articles has other notability guidelines?" I understand the guidelines for what makes an appropriate list, but you seem to be referring to something else.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't make any edit in neither of the theatre articles List of_My Name is Rachel Corrie performances history, My Name Is Rachel Corrie history nor in Rachel Corrie history Rachel Corrie article but 2 reverts and a discussion about nickname. For assuming good faith, you should have bother to tag the article for improvement or at least make an attempt to discuss it before you swiftly nominated it for deletion. So it is interesting that, just after I began to improve references in the article, you nominated the page which you haven't even bothered to edit once, but tracking page (or my edits), and out of sudden before trying to discuss it in talk page nominating the article for deletion. Sure expect good faith by difference in views, but some editors share their views in discussion page beforehand and make some effort to improve articles, before taking last resort measures like deletion nominating. Kasaalan (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of parks in someplace, doesn't need seperate wikipage or notability for every single park, the city's and some parks notability is enough to build a list. Like every single song in an album does not require notability to create an album's list. Kasaalan (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#YELLOWPAGES. This information belongs at http://www.playbill.com/index.php, not an encyclopedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, doesn't need separate article, will likely never need one. IronDuke 21:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with both of the comments above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge, at any rate a list of performances of almost any dramatic production is unnecessary - we don't keep schedule records here.) Nathan T 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge/redirect (second choice). Wikipedia is "not" the Internet Broadway Database, and it certainly is not the Internet off-off-off-Broadway database. (Actually, I don't think even the IBDB lists every performance, and that is for plays and musicals that someone other than Wikipedia readers ever heard of.) What's next, an article listing every time a TV station has rerun The Trouble with Tribbles? 6SJ7 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments clearly false. Even second-season episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series called "The Trouble With Tribbles" has its own seperate article along with Category:Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, yet a collected list of My Name is Rachel Corrie do not according to your argument. Try to think a bit more neutral to the case. TVs, or movie theaters are not actual theaters, so being shown as a movie, and being staged as a theatre play are completely different you should know that clearly. Theatres has artistic directors, spent lots of months to stage a play which actors and other backstage artists involved. Kasaalan (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Internet Broadway Database used in 2227 different wikipedia articles as a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think 6 has a point. He wasn't talking about not having an article at all for Trouble with Tribbles (that argument was lost long ago), just having an article for every airing of it. And in fact, for those who care about such things, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" gets 49K+ ghits, whereas "Trouble with Tribbles" gets over 2.6 million ghits. We don't need a list of all the performances/airings of either one. IronDuke 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong. Both "My Name is Rachel Corrie" and "Trouble with Tribbles" has 8 pages long google result, when duplicate results omitted. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 773 already displayed." star trek episode is more "famous", because its results get crowded by duplicate-similar entries, about "how to download" episode, or tv guides, or just "fan quotes" etc. Also comparing one of the most famous TV shows on earth, with a notable theater play, and comparing TV airing with Theatre staging, are completely illogical. So he has not a point. Kasaalan (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thumb|"Mister Kyle, please transport this article into space!" I'm not getting the same Google result -- perhaps you're handier with it than I. Can you link to your results? And comparing the two does make some sense, even if they are not exactly similar. That ST is so famous just makes 6's point that much more german. Illogical? This fellow begs to differ. IronDuke 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are getting same results. Just go to the last page of google. It should be around 800th internet adress, if you have 100 pages per list 8 pages, if less more. Google lists all pages that contain the term. Yet omits rest of the pages other than 800 because they are "similar" or "duplicate" ones. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omitted results The link to the Omitted results, at the end of the last search results page, show the URLs that were judged to be very similar in their content to the ones already on the list, thus excluded in the first run. You may click on this link and see the full list of every matching URL for a certain query, and will find that it's a useful way of grouping multiple similar results from same domain, to occupy less space on the result pages, thus provide more options and variety.

So raw numbers not matters much more than a repeated number of the title of the star wars episode. Even someone's signature on forums get into that list. that 2.6 results are actually has "troubles with tribbles" that 2.6 million result is overstuffed. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think what you're seeing there is that the search engine is just conking out around a set number of entries. Try "Barack Obama" and you'll get the same result -- but it is highly unlikely that there are the same number of unique websites for all three topics, no? Maybe I'm missing something, and anyone else here who has good Google skills please weigh in, if you like. IronDuke 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have a point. My argument not completely true then. Kasaalan (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think each airing of a Star Trek episode very much resembles the previous ones, for example the cast changes very little between broadcasts. Citius Altius (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that's entirely true--I think they are cut differently, so the cast could conceivably change during some broadcasts. And in any event, this list doesn't tell us how the cast of MNIRC changed, nor is it, in most cases, notable that it did change. 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Citius Altius (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it fails WP:NOTE and also WP:NOT. IronDuke 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines clearly refers to requirements for separate articles, not to every single entry in an article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really got an answer here, so let's try again: why do these cast changes fail WP:NOTE and WP:NOT? Citius Altius (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a random agglomeration of information. Would all of these stagings - would most of them -- merit an article themselves? IronDuke 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping all staging info collected in 1 article. That is why I build a list article, and not separate article for all notable plays separately. But people even try to get deleted collected list. Kasaalan (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all fair enough. And I think some people would agree with you that a list like this has a place here on WP, a not automatically unreasonable premise. I just don't happen to agree. IronDuke 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've given up on trying to apply policies then? Trying to follow your logic I think we got as far as "cast changes are not notable because they don't justify a whole new article" or something along those lines. Citius Altius (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You've given up on trying to apply policies then?" I wish I had thought to put my own position as succinctly as you did. Yes, I have given up on applying policies, sorry I didn't mention that right out of the gate. Any other questions? IronDuke 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well all this WP:NOT and WP:NOT stuff had me confused... thank you for your frank confession. Citius Altius (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. (And I already sensed you were confused ;)). IronDuke 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the guidelines are interpreted by users, and they actually vastly subjective. Notability for example. I just proved most of the plays were sourced by reliable secondary sources newspapers, magazines, a book, which proves enough notability for me. But some other editors might also disagree, however I really suspect everyone voted here actually checked the references 1 by 1 like me, especially after I fixed the reference layout and added more reliable sources into the "weaker" plays. On the other hand, notability and famousness is not directly related. A theater play will be less popular, than a movie or a tv drama for obvious reasons. Notability has something to do with quality, while famousness has something to do quantity. Kasaalan (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it exactly right, K. It's very subjective. Some people honestly believe one mention in one RS (or even not so R of an S) = notability. I don't. I think WP blows up to a hugely unweildy size if we allow that. IronDuke 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused again. Ironduke appears to think notability has something to do with mentions in RS's, and this does indeed have some relation to policies like WP:NOTE... unfortunately it seems we can't just examine the quantity and quality of sources to determine the notability of these stagings, because of Wikipedia's size limitations or whatever. Citius Altius (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it technically possible for you to be confused "again" when you have ostensibly not recovered from your earlier confusion? "unfortunately it seems we can't just examine the quantity and quality of sources..." Unfortunate, yes, but I'm not sure what the word "we" is doing there. If you wanted to rephrase it as "I, Citius Altius" you'd be much nearer the mark. IronDuke 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge of events, held or cancelled, for which reliable secondary sourcing documents the controversies, into the play's article. Yes, there has been some controversy surrounding the stagings of this play, and that should be preserved. The rest of it serves no encyclopedic purpose--it's schedule data, and there's no reason for this to exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes exists with Title, Original airdate, Stardate. Again arguments are false. Kasaalan (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It is not about 1 mention thing. People just don't bother to check notability or research and help the article.
    • We can easily check. For example Countdown to Zero staging supposed to be a "non-notable" one.
      • Conversation starter 'Rachel Corrie' play-discussion opens political series by Lisa Bornstein, Published in Rocky Mountain News daily newspaper September 24, 2007
      • My Name Is Rachel Corrie A dead reckoning in Gaza A Review by Juliet Wittman published in The Denver Westworld Magazine on October 02, 2007
      • Brian Freeland of Countdown To Zero by Tasha King decider.com June 5, 2008
      • `My Name Is Rachel Corrie' Plays In Denver Colorado Progressive Jewish News
      • Review: "My Name is Rachel Corrie" critic of the play by Bob Bows in The Denver Post daily newspaper 10.04.2007
      • Actress embraces soul of the controversial Rachel Corrie by Ollie Reed Jr. in Alberque Tribune Friday, February 15, 2008
      • “My Name is Rachel Corrie” Staged In Des Moines, Iowa by Michael Gillespie published in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2008, page 58
    • It had actually no secondary reference before, now I searched and found reliable sources covering the play. So any article needs time to develop further. But all people do is complaining, and ordering deletions while they don't bother to try improving the article at all. So it had enough coverage by some research. Kasaalan (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Collected Replies for Deletion Arguments[edit]

You may read rest of the answers by clicking blue button. Kasaalan (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For layout reasons, I moved my nearly all answers as a defense for various claims by deletion voters. Kasaalan (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the number of references doubled and number of reliable secondary party references more than tripled since the deletion nomination started. Kasaalan (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the number of sources is relevant. A list of performances, particularly of a production that is itself marginally notable, is non-notable trivia, regardless of how well-sourced. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't in your head or pocket. You cannot claim 1 play is not notable, when there is enough second party coverage in reliable sources. I provide reliable source for claiming notability. You provide your own thoughts for claiming non notability. Trivia is your own claim. Kasaalan (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete obvious each public performance of a show will have some trivial reference: the show is notable. Adding them up together does not make each performance significant, or even a list of them either, especially when most of those listed seem to be either single performances or mere readings. I've strongly supported some of the breakout articles on Corrie. This is going much too far. We could conceivably have such a list--many thousands of items long in many case of every provincial and amateur production of many famous shows. Even for the most famous, that's a directory, not an encyclopedia. Of the examples given above, most are very different, because they are either of a famous star, or the production of parts of mass media to be shown repeatedly. (the Cocteau Twins list is my my opinion the closest, and it should be deleted, as an equally bad example) Bluntly, this is not Hamlet, nor is like to be. DGG (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logic appears to be "every performance has some trivial reference, therefore all such references are trivial". Citius Altius (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, even the "amateur" theaters you refer, are actual theaters staging in actual stages. Also since the play is banned in broadway after oppression, some other local theaters come out and staged the play. Again as I said, most of the theaters are notable already. Only some additions to the list are not. Also you claim wikipedia is not a list, but can you explain why wikipedia has tens of thousands list articles in the first place. (Wikipedia is not a directory guidelines refers to minority type articles like list of small chest models not list of a notable plays staging". And you are not Shakespeare or theatre critic, nor likely ever be. Claiming the play is not Hamlet also interesting, comparing a notable play with world's one of the most famous theatre play or TV series, is not logical. Then there would be no article in wikipedia but a few. The article already lists notable theaters with addition of a few not-that-notable theaters. But you stick out the "weaker" ones as a reason for deletion. Kasaalan (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadian plays, List of fictional plays, List of plays of Dorothy L. Sayers, List of films based on stage plays or musicals, List of plays and films about the American Revolution, List of plays with anti-war themes, List of plays made into feature films, List of plays and musicals set in New York City, Shakespeare's plays, List of Sophocles' plays, List of plays produced by the Shaw Festival, List of one-act plays by Tennessee Williams, List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, List of Noh plays: A-M, List of Noh plays: N-Z, List of X-Play characters, List of musicians who play left handed, List of actors who have played the Doctor, List of actors who played Santa Claus, Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres, Guthrie Theater production history, Claudette Colbert chronology of performances, List of the longest-running Broadway shows, ...
List of theatres and concert halls in Barcelona, List of theatres in China, List of theatre directors in the 20th-21st centuries, List of theatre personnel, List of theatres and opera houses in Paris, List of movie theatres in Mumbai Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatres in Mumbai, List of Norwegian theatres, List of theatres in Bangkok, List of London venues, List of national theatres, List of fictional theatres, List of theatres in United Kingdom, List of theatres in San Francisco, List of Theatre Communications Group member theatres, List of improvisational theatre companies, List of Cineplex Odeon theatres, List of English Renaissance theatres, List of theatre managers and producers, List of Asian American theatre companies, List of Irish theatres and theatre companies, List of Las Vegas Academy theatre productions, List of movie theaters and cinema chains, List of entertainment venues and cabarets in Paris, List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network, League of Resident Theatres ...
"Wikipedia is not a list", "Wikipedia not a directory" sure. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should slow down Kasaalan. Walls of text aren't convincing. At any rate, I clicked on the blue links List of Sophocles' plays up above, because i was planning on using it as an example of a good list (he didn't write that many plays, and those that have survived are landmarks in world literature). At any rate, it's simply a "redirect" to Sophocles. I have no idea how many others of those are redirects. Do you?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I checked each of the page before I posted. Having a list within a page, or as a separate page not matters, since you vote for delete not merge. Dont try to create an illusion of pages are redirects, only 2 pages Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres and List of Sophocles' plays are redirects into main page yet a huge part of the main page. But again by "coincidence" you came up with it, so all the examples should be "redirects", don't they, especially if you don't bother to check them in the first place. If you want to prove me wrong, you can always check them. Walls of text are for deniers. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest Kasaalan, i don't really care about those other lists. At a glance, some of them seem appropriate to me and some seem highly innapropriate. So what? The list we are evaulating is this list. I'm not interested on this AFD page in discussions about other really, really bad lists. For what it's worth, were wikipedia to have a separate article listing all of Sophocles plays, I would be highly supportive of it. Were wikipedia to have a separate article that sought to list every production of, say, Oedipus at Colonus, i would argue for its deletion on the same grouns i'm arguing for this list's deletion. I hope you can understand the difference in these two positions.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People chanting "wikipedia is not a list or directory" so it is a clear reply to them. I don't care what you care or not, that is your own issue.
And to be honest, "at a glance" comment or vote approach is not much useful
If someone share his time to create such a list, I would support it, too, however its length. Possibly you wouldn't understand but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which doesn't have length limitations like a regular printed encyclopedia.
So even the concert tours of "notable" pop culture singer brats has separate articles, list style articles, but stagings of theatres, even when they are notable, do not deserve a page, extremely good personal policy, but where did it ever written in the WP. Kasaalan (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a list that seeks to list every production of the play? Citius Altius (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every "stage" production list article (as a separate page) for any notable theatre play, would be useful. And if you chose not to use it, well you can always ignore. Movie theatre and actual theatre are 2 different things. Being played by a theatre is an international criteria, while being screened in a movie theatre is not. As far as I am aware 3.000 movie theatres exist in America. [2] Kasaalan (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any notable performances to My Name Is Rachel Corrie, and then redirect the article there. It's ludicrous to suggest that every performance of this play is notable, and I don't see the encyclopædic value of enumerating so much information on what is, to be honest, a fairly minor play. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a drama almanac, nor the yellow pages. Second choice is redirect to the play. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead and directly contradict policy, I guess that saves time trying to apply it Citius Altius (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie_performances&oldid=1209373819"