Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral Anarchy

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Anarchy[edit]

Delete non-notable ॐ Priyanath 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for a "soon-to-be popular musical made by...a sophomore at Hamburg Area School".--Fuhghettaboutit 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Baron Larf 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely NN, wiki is not a crystal ball, etc. --Bachrach44 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT for stuff made up in school one day (or over several days, probably) and WP:NOT a crystall ball. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. DarthVad e r 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 01:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Who is this hurting? Why do any of you guys have anything against this article? What makes this any worse then the RENT article? It's not that I'm saying 'Hey! Buy this!' What I'm trying to do is inform, not advertize. I mean how many people are going to say, 'Hey, just because it is a musical made by a random, unimportant person, it is BAD.' No one. That's who. And If I take out the 'Soon-to-be popular' will that make you happy? Blaze The Zombie 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you opened up a paper encyclopedia would you think it was proper to find an article about a high school student's unknown musical production? Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this leads to some differences, it is just as improper to have an article on an unknown, not-notable work as it would be for Britannica. The problem arises when people associate Wikipedia with other online forms of data storage such as blogs and webhosting services. Just because this is an online media does not make it similar to such services--Fuhghettaboutit 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response If it is really an encyclopedia, what is RENT doing in here? 205.235.56.2 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Response Blaze, nobody here is saying, or even implying, that Moral Anarchy is BAD, or that the author is a 'random, unimportant person'. I wish it the best of success, and hope to see it performed on Broadway or off, or appearing at the Sundance film festival. When it does, it will definitely be Notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. That's why Rent has an article - it's a notable Tony and Pulitzer award winning play. Even a play just written by a famous author, but not yet published or in production, is not notable enough to have an article here. I suggest that its own website (moralanarchy.com URL is available!), message boards, myspace, etc.,. are a good way to get exposure for Moral Anarchy. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for Notable events, movies, famous people, etc. Best of luck to Moral Anarchy. And I wish your friend has a notable career in theater and film. ॐ Priyanath 18:03, 12 May 2006 (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.