Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT theatre in Singapore

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. Sandstein 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT theatre in Singapore[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Alright, hear me out; this won't be a short one. (Apologies in advance, for what turns out to be by far the longest nomination essay I've written in 15 years at AfD.)

This article has been notability tagged for over a decade, but I can't honestly say it's not a notable subject. What this IS, however, is a polemic essay that's heavily involved in WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations and choked with editorializing, and it always has been. It's chock full of the editor/s assertions that this production or that constitutes "LGBT theater" because of particular theatrical styles where all roles are played by men, or because the star happens to be trans, or because the editor thinks such and such play "includes LGBT themes" and so on. There are many sources, but actually examining the sources turns up that they're mostly just reviews of the plays/films, from here or there in the world, and do not discuss their actual performance in Singapore by the theaters this article claims put the shows on.

It turns out there was, back in 2006, an AfD of a previous iteration of the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay theatre) where the nom put forth the following rationale: "Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific plays; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the article is little more than one contributor's review of gay theatre in Singapore." The AfD closed as no consensus in one of the common garbage deletion decisions prevalent at the time, where the keep proponents stated that those plays existed and suchlike, and that time should be given for the article to improve.

That was fourteen years ago. It hasn't. Indeed, much of the text of this article is unchanged from then. There is absolutely room for a well-written article, based on reliable Singaporean sources, discussing this important subject. This isn't it. It never *has* been it, and it's rife for nothing beyond TNT. Ravenswing 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this is OR. Even if some of the theatre companies and productions discussed are notable, you can't just say, "I'm going to lump these notable things together and conclude that they are a connected set of set of things that constitute an encyclopedia topic", unless there are actual articles or studies or publications of some kind that have made that connection. In other words, there appears to BE some LGBT theatre that can be viewed from time to time in Singapore, but we don't even have an article in a queer culture magazine, or an entertainment magazine like Time Out, or anything that says it's "a thing".-- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2020 (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.