Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proud (John Stanley play)

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. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proud (John Stanley play)[edit]

Play with no insufficient reliable sources - yet. It may well acquire them after it premieres in April 2009, but at present ~~cannot~~ does not satisfy notability guide. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, copied from article talk page, should be regarded as vote to Keep: "I appreciate your concerns but you will find multiple precoursers to "PROUD" throughout the internet by simply Googling: Proud - a new comedy by John Stanley. It is not my intention to use wikipedia as a publicity tool but simply to arrange a simple and accessible place for people to read about the play and it's characters in more depth. I hope very much you will reconsider your decision to forward this page for deletion. Kind regards, Nic Gilder 637Productions (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

In response: Googling that exact phrase returns one hit. A Google search for Proud+play+"John Stanley"+gay returns more results, but almost none that constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources, which would be necessary to demonstrate the article's notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your position: if the article is deleted then so be it, however: Proud - a new comedy by John Stanley when googled currently gets results from remotegoat.co.uk, indielondon.co.uk, outeverywhere.co.uk as well as the link to John Stanley's own blog where his CV can be read. There is also an interview with Mr Stanley going live on monday 23rd February on the whatsonstage.com website should further notability be required. Thank you for your patience in this matter, Kind Regards, Nic Gilder

Comment The same text seems to appear in outeverywhere, gaynewsuk and indielondon references to Proud. This is apparently from a press relesae, and therefore not giving reliable independent sources. Peridon (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User 673Productions posted another comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mcawans which was presumably intended for this debate, so I'm copying it here again:

But surely "notability" in this instance merely refers to the existence of the work, namely "PROUD" by John Stanley. The simple fact that it is listed with performance dates, venues and times, plus synopses from several sources confirms that the Play exists. This is not an article commenting on the worth of the Play as a piece of Theatre and therefore needs no reviews. As a reference tool, Wikipedia is supposed to allow browsers to call up articles of fact...since so many organisations, including Ambassadors Theatres and Above The Stag Theatre have placed "PROUD" on their websites, the Play must exist. That is all this entry is currently about and therefore all that needs notability: in the future, reviews and comments may be added. Kind regards, Nic Gilder

And in response again: yes, it's clear that the play exists, but notability is a higher standard than existence. The play must have received substantial coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. What we have to discuss here is whether the sources available meet our reliability standards and whether their coverage is substantial. So far it looks as though they're mainly press releases in non-major sources, which I don't think satisfies the standard: others may disagree, and the purpose of this AfD is to discuss this and reach consensus. Please read the notability guideline for more indepth discussion of this standard. Also, if you have references that constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources, please add them to the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says somewhere in Wikipedia's rules that mere existence is not a guarantee of an article. I've written short plays. They have been performed. Are they notable enough for inclusion? No. Am I making a fuss? No. Will I write articles about them if they achieve national recognition? No. Someone else will. The play in question here cannot be notable yet. It hasn't been publicly performed yet. It certainly is getting some publicity. That's to be expected if an audience is wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a directory, a what's-on, or a free web-host. If this play reaches the stage and gets acclaim beyond the audience size likely at its earliest performances there will be a different reaction to an article. Above The Stag Theatre is (from what I can make out) a 50 seat venue above a pub. (I've had ten times that in a house and don't claim notability.) A new play by Willy Russell could achieve notability before performance. By John Stanley? No. I can't find anything much about him outside this article and the associated references. I believe this article is promotional puff. Peridon (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Websters Dictionary notability definition noun 1. pl. -·ties a person who is notable or prominent 2. the quality of being notable I refer the gentleman to the definition of notability as defined in Websters Dictionary, reference 2. “The quality of being notable”

The web definition of notable being: noteworthy: worthy of notice

Does the gentlemen presume to determine this work is unworthy of notice? I question on what authority he makes this assumption. PROUD is a piece of new writing that tackles prevalent issues concerning societies views on gay identity and how this impacts upon people coming to terms with their sexuality within the world today. Are you actually presuming that this issue or a drama tackling this subject matter is unworthy of notice?

This entry is not promoting performances of the play. It is offering Wikipedia’s readership a factual synopsis of the piece. Therefore your somewhat unfair statement suggesting this is ‘promotional puff’ has little relevance to the issue being debated here – which as I understand it is whether “PROUD – A New Comedy by John Stanley” is: a) factually correct in it’s content b) is worthy of notice

The issue here is surely nothing to do with venue size, whether your own works have achieved any notability or whether you have heard of the writer before this piece. Incidentally, John Stanley is a professional writer whose credits include Television (Family Affair, Doctors), Film (Die) and Stage (This Is How A Heart Breaks) to name but a few. Your ignorance of his Curriculum Vitae is not the point in question here. Nic Gilder

Reply: to be clear, we're working here to the specific Wikipedia guideline on notability, which is a rule for determining whether or not articles should be included. It does not correspond to your dictionary definition and it doesn't attempt to reflect the endless possible senses of the term, but it's the rule we use here and it's actually pretty straightforward. Please read the notability guideline. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of the venue is relevant to the potential notability. The current notability consists, so far as I can see, of press release material. My ignorance of John Stanley's CV is down to my not having found him amongst the other John Stanleys who seem to have higher g-ratings - which doesn't give me the impression that he is very notable. I can only go on what I find. Basically, the play has not yet been performed. As I said, a new work by Willy Russell would have a good claim to notability. A new work by Pinter definitely would - on the grounds that he is dead. We at Wikipedia act as a filter. If we didn't, there would be thousands of pages containing nothing more valuable than 'Shaun is AAAAWWWWSSSSOOOMMMEEE!!!!'. That is an obvious case for deletion. When it comes to less clear-cut issues, articles come to AfD (here). As gonzonoir points out, notability here is a Wikipedia definition and Webster has no part in it. This process of considering articles is not a voting process. It is people who are good at searching and reading between lines examining things, sometimes changing their minds as the process goes on, and in the end a consensus is established. As to promotional issues - are you really trying to tell me that you aren't out to get bums on seats? Sorry, statements like 'All copyright to PROUD is currently owned by 6:37 Productions and therefore any enquiries concerning the script should be directed to them.' indicate a finger in the pie from persons with 'Conflict of Interest' as defined in Wikipedia policies (once more Webster is irrelevant). Peridon (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. There is a good chance the subject of this article will reach notability standards once it opens, but very few are the works of drama that are notable before they open. Maybe a work by Pinter or Albee, but not by a comparatively less known playwright Vartanza (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete; I have just used the article for more information on the play after googling the play and playwright. I know that early this year, 2009, it'll be performing. So with not only its existance, being performed, and people like me searching and requiring the information on this site believe that it should not be deleted. One has to be carefull about the comments made about deleting the article as you wonder whether playwrights without articles on their plays allow this to influence their judgement and become bias. — This appears to be a single purpose edit by an IP number user

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.