Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And The World Goes 'Round

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. 1ne 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And The World Goes 'Round

This seems to be an collection of information about a show which combines the tunes of 3 shows. Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary, and all the other things wiki is not. Ohconfucius 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT... whatever this is. --Daniel Olsen 08:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cruft-kind of-cruft. 205.157.110.11 09:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Almost speedyable under A1. Although it just about scrapes through the "very short" criterion, it certainly has little or no context. If author would care to add something to say why this is in the least notable, i'll change my view, otherwise, delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• It seems pretty clear to me: Kander and Ebb are a famous songwriting duo, kinda like Gilbert and Sullivan except not as good. And the World Goes 'Round is one of their musicals, and it's a sort of Broadway version of the popular best-of compilation format. The show itself is notable, and while the article could certainly stand some improvement, I don't see why it needs deletion at this point. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain where in the article Broadway is mentioned. It says "it's a revue". Which could cover anything from Broadway to a troupe of 12-year-olds in their end of term play in Northampton. That's what I mean by context; if this is a notable Broadway show revue it fails to establish that. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears from the Kander and Ebb article that they themselves wrote the revue - however, that is not only unclear from this article itself but not clear to me from a brief amount of off-WP research - i.e. I'm not sure whether it's actually true. Paddles ^T_C 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say you didn't read the related articles? I'll bow to Paddles' extra knowledge here, but you really should have at least read Kander and Ebb, Tony. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I read it but missed that reference, sadly. Changing to Weak keep per fuddlemark above and Metropolitan90 below, Tonywalton  | Talk 10:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless Kander and Ebb's authorship of the revue itself (not just all the songs it is made up of) can be verified, in which case I'd change to weak keep. Paddles ^T_C 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In musical theatre, a "revue" is usually pretty much just a performance of a group of songs. There usually is no script or book, except maybe intros for the songs. Fan-1967 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable revue. See this New York Times review in support of its notability. --Metropolitan90 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note, I've made some edits to include information about awards this revue won when it ran off-Broadway. --Metropolitan90 07:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability. will381796 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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.