Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Madcap

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Madcap[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this play is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this musical is not super important, but it originates the text used by Malcolm McLaren on his album Waltz Darling. I've not found anywhere that information, and it seems interesting. Ingene (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the article. This work was not in the Florodora league (another Rubens show) but collectively our series on Edwardian musical comedies, both major and minor, constitutes an important body of encyclopaedic knowledge. The creators of this piece are all highly notable in their fields, and in my view any work by them is ipso facto notable. Tim riley talk 12:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This musical ran for 354 performances in London's West End, then toured in Britain and also had Broadway and Australian productions. 354 performances was an unusually long run for the day, and the musical was one of the most successful of the 1904-1905 season. The composer, authors of the book, and lyricists were all notable, and several of the cast members were notable stars of the day. This musical is obviously notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per the rationale and improvements to the article by Ssilvers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ther are enough references in the reliable sources to justify its inclusion (the Google Books references are enough to convince me, but there are others). - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the recent improvements and the reasons cited above. Jack1956 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2015 (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.