Critical response to She Has a Name

Critical response to She Has a Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Along with the article "2012 Tour of She Has a Name," it seems to be in a linking loop with the original article, which is itself of simply vast length considered the level of notability of the subject. WP:PROMOTION, WP:N Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page includes, among other things, a lengthy "background" section regurgitating information already covered on the main page for the play as well. I can find no compelling reason for the existence of this article.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem a little bit like overkill. Critical reception should be summed up for the most part and this looks like it's a blow by blow account of each and every critic's response to the play in every place it was performed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response. It's expected that any play would have a large amount of coverage as far as critical reception goes. It's also expected that if a play is shown in more than one place, that each location will receive coverage. However that does not mean that we need coverage of the critical reception of every location- typically the other performances/venues should only be covered if the performances are so well covered, so notable that they'd warrant a separate section about that cast/venue. The only time we typically branch off into a new article is when the subject has received so many awards and nominations in so many notable areas that it would make sense to have a separate article - and they have to be very, very many. This play has not yet gotten that level of awards, so there's no reason for a spinoff at this point in time. I also need to note that it doesn't help that the article is liberally peppered with various POV statements like "Those who listened to readings of the script at the Scripts At Work workshop are said to have been stunned into silence." It's sourced but it's also written in such a way that it really comes across like the page was written by a very devoted fan of the play. This may not have been the case, but in the end this is just way, way overkill. We don't need a blow by blow account of every review ever written- a brief summary is more than enough and anything other than this can and should be on a fan wikia or a website for the play. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, since this is all already fairly well summed up on the pre-existing article for the play, I don't see where any of this really needs to be merged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting would be acceptable, but since the only mainspace links to this article are from the play and its playwright, it's not particularly critical that we do so — once those links are removed, any likelihood of this actually being a potential search topic in its own right will completely vanish. Topic is already adequately summarized in the play's main article, without the need for anything here to be merged for further expansion — and the creator does have a bit of a history of going more than a bit overboard, giving this play a far deeper level of coverage (BLPs of actors whose only substantive claim of notability was having been an unnamed ensemble character in a production of it, etc.) than it actually warrants. No objection to redirect — though I'd actually prefer to just delete since the redirect isn't strongly needed and no content needs to be merged. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a pretty good argument for just deleting, so I wouldn't object to this getting deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for reasons Tokyogirl elaborates. Pax 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Tokyogirl. Also, for something that is so ridiculously in-depth, it's awfully selective about what perspectives they choose to show. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have two or three articles by the same user on what is really a small local play, obviously serving as promotional fluff. I don't even think a merge is necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
• Keep, GA quality article. Significant amount of secondary source coverage over time. — Cirt (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Cirt. 63 refs shows that there has been enough critical response to the play for a separate article. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tokyogirl79, The Drover's Wife, Bearcat, and Roscelese. The author Andrew Kooman is a "good topic" which identifies Ten Silver Coins (a stub on an young-adult novel ), She Has a Name (GA), 2012 tour of She Has a Name (FA) and Critical response to She Has a Name (GA) as "among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community". I agree with the comments above that three articles on one play is overkill. EChastain (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: The Good Topic is here, and only includes She Has a Name, the tour, and the critical response articles. Kooman himself and Ten Silver Coins are not a part of any Good or Featured topic, as they are not GA+ quality. --PresN 01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PresN, please see this, at the bottom of the play articles.

Template:Andrew Kooman

Sorry, I guess it's not a "good topic". But it is at the bottom of this article and the others. How can a reader tell which are in the "good topic"? EChastain (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Topics delegate (and possibly the de facto director) here. To begin, to be considered a "good topic" less than 50% of the topic, which at minimum has to be three articles of the same topic, has to at Good Article status. 50% and over makes it become a Featured Topic. What you displayed wasn't a topic but a template, which is completely different. PresN showed that the main article, which is the play, the tour, and the critical response all make up a topic because they are all part of the same subject. If you have anymore questions about topics, please let me know. I'm just here because if this article and the tour article get deleted, merged, or both the topic is no more. GamerPro64 03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Investigate The creator of this article Neelix, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see 1, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account Yakteur). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --Wolbo (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete or Merge - per others above, it is covered in the play. --DHeyward (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is something suspicious going on. Putting aside for a moment the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and join others in condemning the notability of this article and the other related AfD article, I am suspicious of the motivations of the nominator, who appears to be a sockpuppet (possibly of 184.161.25.16; Yaktaur, and Johnnydowns) and who may have a vendetta against articles like this one and a few others improved by Neelix (an experienced and prolific editor and administrator who improved other featured articles on this topic and who apparently retired after enduring wikihounding). As for the notability of this article, I believe it is notable because a) I have actually read the article and see how it expands on the knowledge in the section of its main article, b) it is part of a featured/good topic, c) it is a good article as recognized by other competent editors, and d) it is considered notable by the high number of external sources (I have spot checked them). Let us not cause an injustice against an undeserved article that was improved by a respected, now former, Wikipedian. Prhartcom (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response - others hinted at it above, but with the main She Has a Name article sitting at only 29K of prose, I don't believe this meets the criteria for WP:SPINOFF. If the main article was at least 50K, I would consider "keep", and if it was at 70K I'd probably go with "strong keep, bad nom" .... but it isn't, so I can't. Under the circumstances present, since the title is not what I would consider a typical search term, I would go with "delete". However, I believe I should make an exception here as in this case, merging the critical response back into the main article is probably going to be a lengthy and difficult task, and destroying properly reviewed prose and sources so editors cannot retrieve them (via the history) to do the merge is unhelpful - there's no rush to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)[reply]