Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower Troupe

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 no consensus. Even after disregarding Bellaclarita's contribution - angry questions to the nominator are not valid arguments to keep an article - we don't have agreement about whether this group is notable separate from its revue. Sandstein 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Troupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While the revue is itself notable, this troupe is not. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage about this troupe, by itself, to pass WP:GNG. Would redirect, but another editor insists on recreating. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep While I really should respond like another one of Onel5969's victims - "I disagree. It's just you.", let me point out the obvious.

1. The so-called "searches" that were done, where were these done? How many people had done it? Searching on Yahoo Japan, Google, or Twitter? Searching for Japanese topics and trying to read Japanese text using Google translate? Or just searching for English info? Because if searches were done using the 2 former methods, the sheer amount of Takarazuka-related Japanese Wikipedia pages alone should've kept you busy for the next 3 months, and have no time to be typing here.

2. Let's assume for a moment that, to have the confidence to decide an individual listing of a Takarazuka troupe unnecessary, Onel5969 has sufficient knowledge of the Takarazuka Revue: So please, take look at the chart and explain to us why there are such terms as "School Year" and "Graduated". Explain to us why a theatre company with a limited fanbase needs to have 5 teams (400+ members) and how the teams rotate, how the performances are planned and scheduled. Explain to us the difference between the 5 troupes. Which one is known to have the best dancers? Which one is known to have taller members? Which one is known for the best sword fights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellaclarita (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Maybe it's just me, but Bellaclarita's questions above seem to rub me the wrong way. If there is more information that ought to be in the article but isn't there, I would hope that editors who want this article kept would add that information rather than quizzing the nominator about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Metropolitan90. Anyone nominating an article for deletion should be able to explain the basis for their nomination and should be able to respond to questions about it. They don't need to do a ton of research, but the fact that questions are asked is a good thing. It is true that a Google search on a Japanese topic is not likely to turn up coverage that may exist in Japanese-language sources. At the same time, the person asking the question should be willing to meet the nominator half way and offer some support for their vote. Deleting an article should not be done lightly. This article is not well written, and the majority of it is devoted to an historical list of personnel, which is not very encyclopedic. But before deleting, let's at least carefully consider serious questions that are raised. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Takarazuka is of course notable. One option would thus be to merge the useful information in this article into Takarazuka, but I think this would unbalance the main article. The main article clearly explains the differences between the troupes, but doesn't (and I think probably shouldn't) include information about specific activities of the different troupes. I was able to find clear evidence from Google that different troupes have different styles and perform different repetoires. For example, I was able to find evidence of one troupe being more likely to perform adaptations of Shakespeare, while another troupe (the Star Troupe) travelled to put on shows in Taiwan that crossed over to Taiwanese local traditions ( https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3375919 ). Ultimately I suspect that each of the five troupes will end up with their own articles, linked from the main article and providing specialist information. Obviously this isn't information that every Wikipedia reader is ever going to read or care about, but if you're into this kind of thing I'm pretty sure you're going to want this level of granularity. RomanSpa (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Takarazuka Revue. I'm sure this article is useful to those who already know all about this topic, but I would prefer to redirect this page and let other editors try again later to write an article that provides more context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure this is a helpful suggestion: part of the advantage of this separate article is that it allows us to highlight the particular features and activities of this troupe, which are different from those of other troupes. A redirect without a merge would lose useful information, but a merge would tend to unbalance the main article on Takarazuka. In effect you're currently saying "redirect, then let other editors write another version of this article", which seems very odd; surely the best thing is to let this article stand, and let it be gradually improved. RomanSpa (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2021 (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.