Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Theatre (art)

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. ✗plicit 12:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War Theatre (art)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hoax? The two sources are not correct (ISBN links to other books, title of first one as given don't exist). I can't find references which use "war theatre" with this meaning (as far as meaning can be found in this article). If it exists and is notable, it will need a thorough rewriting. Fram (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problematic unverifiable book reference has also been inserted into Site-specific art, purporting to support an added text which, even allowing for art-speak's tendency to utilise the word-salad bar, is ungrammatical and incomprehensible: [1]. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And another here at Found Object [2], I am also thinking this might be a hoax as Fram suggests. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as undecipherable drivel – whether or not the topic is actually notable and whether or not the sources are faked. SpinningSpark 10:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG and may likely be a hoax. The book authored by Paul Winthur and supposedly published by Cambridge University Press is not listed as a publication on the Press's website, nor do they list Winthur as an author. The creator of this article has added this citation to several WP articles along with original research. It's perplexing, but nevertheless, assuming good faith, this article does not meet our criteria for notability and should not be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is pure gibberish with unreliable sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As discussed above, an unreliably-sourced and incomprehensible article whose presence does no service here. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2022 (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.