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. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday: A Play in Verse[edit]

Good Friday: A Play in Verse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Currently sourced by a reference which does not reference the work, and a YouTube video. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is at least mentioned here. I think that criticism of this play is likely to show up in criticism of collections of Masefield's works, and there might be plenty of it, but it is hard to find on Google. Someone ought to do a serious search for scholarly criticism of this play before we toss it out based on a casual google search. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you Ssilvers, your reference has pointed out a inaccurracy in the article copied over from John Masefield#Collections of poems (1916 >> 1914). I started the article because I wanted to know more about "Good Friday", a major work of verse by a future Poet Laureate. If it fails WP:GNG then WP:GNG, a recent work by anonymous editors, is not fit for purpose. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This work easily passes WP:GNG. A sampling of reliable sources providing significant coverage: Reviews in The Independent, North American Review, and The Nation; discussion in John Masefield: A Critical Study (pages 64–66); and discussion in an article on "Modern Passion Plays". These are all sources that I could freely read on Google Books; there are likely more that aren't indexed there or don't have a sufficient preview to confirm significant coverage. Also less freely available are results from a Wikipedia Library search, including reviews in Poetry and The Times. I hope those are all useful for improving the article, in addition to showing there are plenty of sources to support notability. --RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional input needed since one keep is the creator and the other keep and a comment do not constitute consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found by RL0919. (For anyone who, like me, can't access the Google Book sources linked above, here's the North American Review article at JSTOR and John Mansfield: A Critical Study at Open Library.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 09:39, 23 February 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.