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.
It is questonable if this play is notable enough. The author is not notable for his own wiki-page; nor is the director. The Plot (With a keen sense of timing...) and the Reviews-section read like a part of an advertisement. The home-page is down. Sourcing is present, but only the
New York Times-article can be seen as a "reliable source that is independent of the subject." I do not believe this is sufficient to meet
WP:GNG, but I can be wrong.
Jeff5102 (
talk)
21:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the provision of sources, a 3rd relisting for additional discussion seems in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk)
10:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per RL0919; those references plus the existing ones are (just) enough for GNG. I've removed a bunch of the promo material.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
01:08, 27 July 2018 (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.