Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and the beanstalk(ish)

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. Sr13 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack and the beanstalk(ish)

Jack and the beanstalk(ish) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This pantomime has no sources provided and there are no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. The article claims that the show was performed on a VHS release titled Steve Oliver: The CV, which itself garners no relevant Google hits and is not listed on the Internet Movie Database. The Steve Oliver who created this pantomime does not appear to be the same Steve Oliver who has a Wikipedia article already. I submitted this article for proposed deletion, but the {{prod}} tag was removed; then another person submitted the article for proposed deletion, but I removed the {{prod}} tag because an article can't go through WP:PROD twice. Anyway, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">Dalejenkins</span> 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. --Oscarthecat 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom huji—TALK 19:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why delete this article about a cult hit. Just because it doesn't garner google hits. If you look at the years the show came out, you will realise that this was pre-internet! The article should stay, after all there are articles about murderers and sex offenders on here and nobody complains — 81.96.71.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - FYI, this anon. SPA just tried to remove the AfD notice from the article ... Oops! They did it again!. :-) —72.75.70.147 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment And they tried to remove the Afd again. Edward321 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This show was written in 1993, and released to video in 1997. A look at the article History of the World Wide Web should be sufficient to establish that this was not the pre-Internet era. While the Internet was less commonly used back then, it certainly existed and was available to (at least some of) the public. --Metropolitan90 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - This anonymous vandal 81.96.71.55 may be the author, Podmaster2 (talk · contribs), but that's beside the point ... after they posted a comment about this AfD on the article's main page, I moved it to the talk page, and did something that none of the other editors have apparently tried to do; educate and raise their consciousness about how things are done here ... they have been operating under the delusion that there is some kind of conspiracy against the subject, when the fact is that they have never been appraised of WP:N, WP:A, and WP:COI ... please, people, remember the time when you knew even less about Wikipedia than they do now (assuming they've read those three articles), and next time try to put a velvet glove on the iron fist when dealing with self-promoting nuggets like this one ... the prohibition against biting them does not prevent us from reaching out to point them in the right direction, does it? Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot believe the snobbery that is operating within this site. I am not podmaster whatsisname, I am a fan who remembers the play very well. Just because YOU have never heard of it doesn't mean nobody has. If I recommended for deletion someone or something that I hadn't heard of, then someone would be annoyed about it. The play was written in 1993, and at that time is wasn't as commonplace as now to put everything on the internet. If it was written and performed now then it would have a website but not then. Even in 1997 when Mr Oliver's video was released it wasn't as big a deal to put everything online. Websites were seen as a passing fad (wrongly obviously) back then. I say keep this article as the opinion of the elite who think they own wikipedia doesn't count as gospel. It's a shame there isn't a regulator to moniter bullying. I'm all for freedom of speech but are any of the objectors to this article the boss of wikipedia? Another point that seems to have been overlooked by these people is that this is an article about a play that hasn't been performed since 1997, with no sign of a revival. So how on earth can this be seen as advertising? Why advertise something from the past? Keep the article by all means and let's see some common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.71.55 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 June 2007
  • As I explained very clearly on Talk:Jack and the beanstalk(ish), Internet coverage has absolutely nothing to do with it ... find some press clippings that talk about it and that would be sufficient ... no one has said anything about "advertising" ... the problem with the article is lack of Notability and Attribution, i.e., it doesn't matter if I've never heard of it so long as I can Verify what's claimed in the article by being able to look at the microfiche of a published article about it in a library somewhere ... as for "bullying," please provide something to back up that claim ... OTOH, your repeated vandalism (including your attempt to remove material from my talk page) is well documented, but no punitive actions have been taken ... yet. —72.75.70.147 00:40, 21 June 2007 (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.