Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klondike Kalamity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - some unhelpful comments by one editor. I did note Metropolitan's attempt at providing references but agree with the consensus that notability via third party reliable sources has not been adequately established. --VS talk 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klondike Kalamity

Klondike Kalamity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable play; doesn't have speedy cat; author removed prod without explanation; COI:author is writer of subject of article; fails to assert notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment from author: Any chance we can hold off deleting the article on Klondike Kalamity?Hi, I'm realatively new to Wikipedia, I have no wish to offend anyone by starting an article about our stageplay, but I am trying to gather more info to flesh the article out.
    Would contributions from other sources help?
    I see you have no true article on old-time melodrama comedies per se, but in that admittedly narrow genre, Klondike is very well known.
    Thank you.
    Aatragon (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Gary Peterson, co-author of Klondike Kalamity, 02-18-2008 copied to this page: 11:25, February 19, 2008 by Aatragon (talk · contribs)

What is "speedy cat"? 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Aatragon (talk · contribs)

  • Keep. This may not be the most famous play around, but a Google News search indicates that it does receive productions up to present times. I would give it the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As Metropolitan90 says this does get performed and there are a few Google News Archive hits, mainly listings. Notability generally requires more in-depth coverage. The original publication dates before the internet era, though, so there are probably offline sources. This barely passes the heard-of-it test, though. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless we can come up with some kind of reliable sources that discuss it, a few Googlehits is not enough to meet notability requirements. Surely the author ought to have some clippings from theater trade journals, etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are no notability requirements. Frankly, why is "notability" even relevant? In fact, can anyone provide a concrete description of what it is, or is it just a way to get out of having to admit up front that you don't like it/don't know anything about it/aren't interested in it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS talk 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Orangemike. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no predjudice against a recreated article with outside sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Why should we wait until someone can provide sources to have an article on this? Sources aren't EVER needed up front; they're only needed after the fact, if someone is questioning a claim made in the article--and a failure to provide sources in that case only means you remove the statement, not the entire article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • See WP:V Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • (a) verifiability is not the same as sourcing (b) we're not bound by "policies" anyway. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — It exists, doesn't it? We can verify its existence, can't we? Why should anything else matter, then? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Read it; it's bullshit--it runs counter to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as no evidence of notability has been demonstrated in some three weeks of AFD listing, an exceptionally generous span. --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be established by means of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (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.