Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of San Francisco Ballet 2012 repertory

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 keep. User:Arxiloxos' comment best captures the rough consensus here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Francisco Ballet 2012 repertory[edit]

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

There is simply no encyclopedic benefit in documenting repertory season-by-season and performances day-by-day. WP:INDISCRIMINATE may apply here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are a number of other articles in Category:Lists of New York City Ballet repertory by season that I wish to include in this AfD; it just takes time to tag everything. I mean to nominate everything in the category and if anyone wants to help out that's cool :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will probably nominate the others separately now that this AfD has a vote; I don't want anything to be improper. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There's nothing historically significant about these individual performances. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as directories. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all — This has been previously debated and resolved in favor of retaining, not least on the grounds that even major dance companies' rep. is elsewhere almost impossible to obtain. — Robert Greer (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you direct us to the previous discussion? Note also that Wikipedia's purpose is not to host all content that it's difficult to find elsewhere; see for example WP:ITSUSEFUL. If you want it for your own reference, it could be userfied. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. This information might be hard to find elsewhere, but that is not a reason to insist on it being hosted here. --Daniel 23:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all NOTWHAT? it isn't NEWS. The part of NOT that is relevant is NOT PAPER. It's performance details, appropriate to the content of articles about famous artistic institutions. The analogy is with discographies and the like, which are intended to be complete and detailed. Or in another direction, the list of games in a sports season. Look at 1996 New York Yankees season, for example, which not only lists individual games, but individual innings. Or 2010 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team, which lists every individual game they played. Useful is an appropriate criterion for list articles, DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh man, don't get me started on Wikipedia's coverage of sports. :P –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A modest proposal Since Wikipedia's coverage of sports apparently galls you even more than its coverage of ballet, may I suggest that you flag for deletion the same number of sports articles — twenty-six — for the sake of fairness make them all in the same league — and if you can obtain concensus there I will be only too happy to support the deletion of the like number of ballet lists. If you cannot obtain concensus there may I ask that you retract your request that these 26 ballet articles be stricken? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you believe day-by-day coverage is encyclopedic, you believe it's encyclopedic. I disagree with the position, but it's a fine one to hold. Vote-trading is not okay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not see how anything that I've written could have disrupted Wikipedia — it surely was not my intent to do so — but I think I understand what you mean (I do not, however, understand what you mean by vote-trading.) We all know what would happen if someone proposed to delete a single article that had to do with Major League Baseball, to say nothing of deleting 26. This was proposed as a gedankenexperiment, and it never occurred to me that anyone would take this literally. The disruption to Wikipedia would be enormous. Every red-blooded male and half the female population of Wikiworld would rise as a man and march, bearing torches, a cauldron of boiling tar, a bag of feathers and a rail upon which to ride out of Wikitown the traitor — nay, heretic — who proposed such a heinous act. Let us engage in a further experiment. Imagine now that ballet, classical music and theatre were as popular as baseball, rock and roll, and football are in this most imperfect of all imperfect worlds, and that the latter were as underrepresented as the former — and that some fiend proposed to delete an article about the Detroit Symphony or the Dayton Ballet! Every able-bodied female and half the male population would rise and march, bearing torches, a cauldron of boiling tar, a bag of feathers and a rail upon which to ride the villain out of town. The fact that those of us who write about the performing arts on Wiki. are a wee tiny minority should not subject us to the actions of an oppressive majority. Wikipedia should stand — within its context as a repository of fact — in the vanguard of protecting the right of expression, especially to those of us who choose to write about less popular subjects. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I started the 2012 San Francisco Ballet page, and see no difference between a page for a company's reportory season and TV show's list of episodes, a band's discography, a list of actor's movies, etc. It's a slice of an artistic entity's body of work, and a season is well-known way of categorizing such. Jjwyatt (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 02:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all- I agree with Jjwyatt and DGG, and see absolutely no difference between this set, discographies, movie listings, and sports articles. There is simply no reason to delete these, unless you wish to delete all those articles as well. Now responding to individual deletion arguments:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY- Clearly, if these are in violation of that policy, every single discography article for musical artists is as well.
WP:NOT, WP:ITSUSEFUL- This argument is simply "Due to my policy that these are not encyclopedic but sports listings and musical listings are, they should be deleted."

A412 (Talk * C) 03:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING Mythpage88 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. After some reflection, I don't think any of the NOT arguments that have been raised apply here. This is certainly not "directory" information, in the usual understanding of what a directory is, nor is it indiscriminate. I don't think there is any policy reason requiring these articles to be deleted. Instead I think it comes down to editorial discretion; while I can understand why some editors might think this is information overload, I think that Robert Greer, DGG, and Jjwatt have articulated good reasons why this information is valuable and enhances the encyclopedic coverage of dance on Wikipedia. At that point, the editorial balance should come out in favor of making this information available for the audiences that are interested in it. And one might also consider that Wikipedia has not, as a general matter, done as good a job covering the fine arts as we have with popular culture. I would hope we could do both. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLORNOTHING Mythpage88 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how does this differ from lists of locales for concert tours and sports teams seasons by years? Hard to differentiate from this; in which event - if those merit inclusion, this does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia holds immense amounts of non-encyclopedic information - but we have to start somewhere! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fewer, larger articles. One per company per year should be plenty. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is fine with me and can be done in a trice — or they can stay the way they are, whichever is thought better. The only question would be whether to go by calendar year or to follow NYCB's own division of the year into fall, winter and spring seasons — September through June — the programming for all of which is announced at the same time (the summer season — and tour, if any — are announced seperately and can be lumped into either the preceeding spring or following fall.) Robert Greer (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The articles are not indiscriminate or directories. I do see some benefit in some merging, as Stifle suggests, but that would be subsequent to a keep decision, if at all. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging would be helpful. If someone is interested in one season, they are likely to be interested in all of them--though there will still be article size considerations. (And I would suggest a somewhat more compact layout.). DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 1 February 2012 (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.