Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia

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. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of Zambia

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

Unsourced meaningless nanostub, untouched since 2009. Topic doesn't seem to exist given all the weird wording. Deprodded for no valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a source to a book chapter about the subject and deprodded this for a perfectly valid reason. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better than nothing and (now) offers at least a coherent overview. It has a ref. It's tagged as a stub. An essay-like tag could maybe added if people choose, too. We're going to want a Theatre in Foo main article for every country that has theatre -- which is to say every country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: So "this barely even exists, we don't know if we can even define it" is a coherent overview? How about proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does exist so you don't have to resort to weasel wording? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I added proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it exists. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This idea that Zambia can't possibly have theatre -- because the poor Zambians haven't figured it out something so complex, or whatever -- doesn't wear well. It's a nation of 16+ million people. But keep it up TPH your flailings at Afd are always good. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits, per the above. At most, you might have an argument for merging to Zambia#culture or some such. But the implication that the subject doesn't exist is, as noted above, a troubling one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Shawn in Montreal Country articles seem to use "Theatre of..." more than "Theatre in..."). For Zambia, there's clearly significant coverage in RS (Cambridge guides to Theatre and African and Caribbean theatre, World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Africa, A History of Theatre in Africa, African Popular Theatre: From Pre-colonial Times to the Present Day, etc). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydronium Hydroxide: And of course, source dumping in an AFD means they will automatically be added to the article themselves, right? That must be why the article is still fucking untouched since goddamn 2009. If this really were a notable topic, then the article wouldn't be a meaningless microstub stinking up the wikipedia since goddamn fucking forever. But yeah, let's just let it sit and rot forever because there's no deadline right? I think I'll write an article on my own ass, because it exists and therefore must be notable. Who cares if the article is still 5 words long 10 years from now? Effort? What the fuck is that?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you fucking notice that this fucking article had a fucking reference to a fucking 11-page fucking chapter about the fucking subject in a fucking book published by a fucking reliable fucking publisher before you fucking started this fucking discussion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TPH - you're better than this. Cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: So are you going to add the sources, or are you also hoping they'll just magically add themselves and make this an FA overnight? If you can be bothered to scream that it's notable, you can be bothered to throw the goddamn sources in there yourself. Otherwise, this article is just gonna sit and continue to rot because everyone else is just going to say it's somebody else's problem. I thought this was a project where people worked together, not a place where we just sit round and pass the buck all day long. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason pots and kettles come to mind when I read that comment. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Your nomination was that the article was unsourced (and had been for a long time), and that the subject did not exist. The first point has been addressed - there's a source now. The second point is laughable bordering on offensive. It's thin, yes - which is why I suggested that a merge might be better. There are few editors on this project who know more about our deletion processes than you do - for fuck's sake, see also WP:HAMMER. And that's really my point - you're getting really really worked up over this article (and other recent AFDs, as noted at WT:AFD), and quite frankly I think your conduct is becoming problematic. But for your name at the top here, I wouldn't expect this sort of nomination from you, nor would I have expected your reactions here and elsewhere recently. I'm suggesting nothing more than that y'all need to take a deep breath and cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that there was a source referenced in the article before this discussion was started - I added it when I contested the WP:PROD deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: So are you going to expand the article or what? It's absolutely annoying that this nanostub has existed forever without anyone touching it, and everyone is screaming "keep, it's notable" but not putting in the effort to fix it. Don't bother defending it if you can't be bothered to also fix it. This thing happens all the goddamn time, where everyone clamors for notability, but nobody can be bothered to fix it up. Why is that so hard? Are you going to fix it, or are you just going to let it fester too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of articles that need improvement. Ultraexactzz, like any other editor, is a volunteer who chooses where to work on Wikipedia, which may well not be on the specific article that you choose to focus on. The only way for you to ensure that this specific article is worked on is for you to do it yourself, per WP:SEP, which you cite yourself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator". A deletion nomination does not create editors with spare time to work on the nominated article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2017 (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.