Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreskin's Lament

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 of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreskin's Lament

Delete. The page is incoherent - while it now does seem to document an actual play, there is insufficient information available; the play, if it does exist, is hardly known of and does not warrant an individual page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulus89 (talk • contribs).

• Delete. The content does not merit an article. --Wraith Daquell 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't even think this is a real play, but even so there is not enough information available to make it its own article. (68.32.34.152 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

This entry is a crock. The person who listed this article is 68.32.34.152 (26 edits) who said "Delete, the page is incoherent etc". The first Delete is from Wraith Daquell (19 edits). The second Delete is by -- you guessed it -- the same 68.32.34.152 who nominated the article for deletion. Note that in his first comments above, he said it seemed "to document a real play", but in his vote he said he didn't "think it is a real play". I was unaware of this article until seeing it on this list, so I read it. It is stubby and needs editing. But it is genuine, and describes a prize winning play. Moriori 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I believe you are mistaken, Paulus89 was the one that nominated the article. If you have any evidence of it's award winning status, I am more than willing to change my vote. Eivind^Speak! 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Curiouser and curiouser. The entry of this article on this page was made by someone who didn't leave a signature. On reading the entry, I naturally went to check out the actual article (I don't vote here without reading the articles first!). I saw that the Afd had been placed on the article by User:68.32.34.152 and assumed it was he who put the article on AfD. So, apologies for mixing them up.
• Delete doesn't state notability. Eivind 07:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up Eivind^Speak! 08:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real play, sufficiently notable. If you don't find it notable enough, merge to Greg McGee, but I don't see a reason for outright deletion. Kusma (討論) 07:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and give it a tag. Moriori 08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; merge into Greg McGee if desired. Fails to assert important things like its publication history, sales, major performances, awards in new play festivals; reading the article, you might conclude this play was made up in school one day. If evidence of notability surfaces before this AfD is over, consider this vote changed to keep. Otherwise, the original author (who should be aware the deletion process is not a vote) may consider rewriting the article once the film mentioned is playing in cinemas. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) After reviewing Greg McGee, I suggest just merging this content into that article. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs substantial clean-up. One of New Zealand's most famous and controversial plays. Will tag and attempt. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since our Kiwi readers can vouch for this. ProhibitOnions 12:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 15 March 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.