Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Very Potter Musical

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Potter Musical

Blatant advertising of a non-notable production; created to take advantage of the latest Harry Potter film release. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only claim to notability is an item on Michigan Public Radio. This warrants, at best, a sentence in the Harry Potter article or in an article on trademark/copyright infringement. Racepacket (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable play. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very very unfortunately, this falls towards delete. This is a really well done musical, and I highly encourage you all to watch it, but unfortunately, this has only one minor mention in a reliable source, which isn't enough for inclusion as a stand-alone article. NW (Talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Notability. This only needs a mention in the Parodies of Harry Potter article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it weren't for Wikipedia i would probably not have found this brilliant musical. Sermoa (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Discussion of this piece of work is all over the internet and Wikipedia is the only complete source of information. Yes, it could be considered a plug for the video, but since no one profits from the viewing, that seems irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.130.254 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the IP's only edit. Joe Chill (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also only the second edit the registered "keep" user has made as well. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of the 2 "keep" edits addresses Wikipedia's notability policy. In fact the first one implies that there is a lack of documentation elsewhere: the exact opposite of asserting that there is substantial coverage. The second one also says "Wikipedia is the only complete source of information", again the opposite of what is needed. The fact that nobody is profiting is irrelevant: WP:PROMOTION refers to "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reliable secondary sources regarding the production of this musical, and having an article like this is and can be a potentially great resource regarding the production. And as far as addressing the notability policy: it's notable in its unique status as a popular non-profit project based on a very popular series of books and films. This show is in no way affiliated with the films in any way, so its illogical to claim that it is some sort of advertisement for the films or is attempting to benefit from the success of the films, especially as this project gained notability independently of the newest film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.20.11 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments in response to the above "keep" comment.
  1. This is this IP editor's only edit to date.
  2. If there are "several reliable secondary sources" then it would be good to be told what they are. So far the links and "references" posted are largely self-promotional. We have been given links to a YouTube clip, to io9 ("a science fiction blog", according to its Wikipedia article), to blip.tv ("a hosting, distribution and advertising platform", according to WP article), one brief news report originating from Michigan Public Radio, which reads very much like a report paraphrased from a press release, and an even briefer mention by Detroit Free Press which tells us the show has had attention on blogs and is a "hit" on YouTube. This is certainly not extensive independent coverage.
  3. The sentence beginning "And as far as addressing the notability policy..." still ignores the WP notability policy: it says nothing about independent coverage, and "its unique status as a popular non-profit project" has no connection with that policy at all.
  4. It is difficult to see the point of "its illogical to claim that it is some sort of advertisement for the films", as nobody has made that claim. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that several articles published in legitimate forums (Detroit Free Press, Michigan NPR), numerous personal and news blog postings, interviews with cast members, and thousands of viewings on youtube this article meets the notability requirements. At no point do Wikipedia's own guidelines regarding notability state how MANY articles must reference the subject in question before it is considered notable. The standard of web notability on Wikipedia (for which I think this play must be most closely categorized because it is loaded onto youtube and they are as yet no definitive play guidelines) state:

"1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

and elsewhere it is stated:

"a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

I will state that, in my opinion, two reliable secondary sources, the original material, interviews, etc. constitutes "significant covered" for a small, student play put on youtube. The fact that this has garnered any professional press is, in my opinion, significant because in most large cities a school production is largely irrelevant, even on a slow news day.

I also feel that, though these are not current Wikipedia rules and I respect those current rules, widespread personal blog reporting and page hits/video viewings should constitute a valid proof of notability considering the era in which we live and the very reason Wikipedia itself has become so widely used and increasingly respected. The concept of notability and the relevance thereof is widely disputed even on Wikipedia (there are Wikipages devoted to the various arguments for and against notability requirements) because of the incredibly subjective and Western/Professionally/Globally biased nature of the concept of notability and the invalid assumption that search engines provide proof or a lack thereof with regard to notability.

I do not believe that the article is written from an advertising point of view, but rather that it unbiasedly addresses the creation and performance of the play and subsequent internet popularity. I understand how it could be seen as advertising but also feel that it is near impossible to source an original play, film, work of literature, etc. without referring to the art in question and that it is extremely responsible to make the performance or piece viewable in the sources.

99.135.198.163 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)lunamorgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamorgan (talk • contribs) [reply]

FYI - one keep vote per person, please. Nathan^T 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely non sourced with anything approaching notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2009 (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.