Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Performance

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. Without prejudice against recreation as a proper disambiguation page or redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Performance[edit]

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

An article that contains, essentially, a dictionary definition with very little actual content. To elaborate, the definition itself is very vague and is essentially quoted/picked-and-chosen from the single source used in the article; the article contains multiple vague and weasel word assertions in itself (the definition appears to be a WP:SYN paraphrase, phrases such as "an area of constant change", "digital... performance has provided a bridge", a completely tangential section in the "digital revolution" section, etc.) and reads like an original research essay. There is a reference; however, as indicated, it is the only reference, and attempts to find legitimate sourcing to support the content of the article, or that use of the phrase "digital performance" to mean what is given here outside of the authors of this book, has failed. Essentially, it looks to be a summary of the source. The use of technology in theatre may be a legitimate topic for an article (or for inclusion at an already-existing article about technical theatre, such as stagecraft), but neither this content nor this title appear to be it. Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: another editor appears to be adding tangential spam about one or two artists in particular. I am uncertain if they are related to the creator of this article, but it might be indicative of coatrack-style spam. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it can be turned into a disambiguation page listing all the possible meanings?--Pink Bull 14:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poor references, needs much change. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:13, 16 November 2010 (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.