Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Making an entrance (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making an entrance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research from 2006, which survived a 2007 AFD on the basis that someone was bound to give it "tender loving care' and make it encyclopedic. A listing of ways characters appear, such as "from the feet up" or "in silhouette first." I did not find reliable and independent secondary sources to support what is in the article, other than noticing that sometimes characters appear in these ways. They appear in lots of other ways, too, so who says these are the most important ways? Edison (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Purely original research. Not a single reference to mark any of it as notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Hesitant to support it in the current state, but really its biggest problem may be the title. In the spirit of meta:eventualism, I think it hasn't realized its potential value yet. I understand that might be a hard sell after not having improved measurably since the last AfD, but I'll have a look around to see if I can't dig up anything. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable; for example see Shakespeare's Stagecraft. AFD is not cleanup. Exit, stage left. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework. The topic is most certainly notable, but this Article needs to be organized a lot better. It also needs a References Section, and some sources to fill it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or kill off all the WP:OR. I agree with almost everything said above--it's only a question of how best to fix the obvious problem. I agree with AdventurousSquirrel that the title might be a major problem, and I agree with those above who say the subject has significance in terms of movie (famous film entrances, [1]), theater (noting Andrew Davidson's comment), interviews, teaching, psychology [2], etc. I just don't see anything in the article worth saving, except maybe the first few lines, which are unfortunately, unreferenced. The article is so bad and lacking of WP:RS, almost everything needs to go. I would be happy to see it resurrected if something more worthwhile with WP:RS is created, but what we have I can't support without at least some quality WP:RS to back it up. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article is wholly WP:OR. While I found it very interesting, I'm pretty sure OR is like a policy or something. Not even a guideline. A policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Show it the exit. All unsourced OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete--Well, we don't keep articles based on WP:OR.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this poor, unsourced stub is like Proust's actress, waiting offstage for her entrance like a children's moon. Is there any way a closing admin can userfy her? Bearian (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This debate has been open for almost a month. This amount of time is such that, rather than continuing to Relist it over and over again, it would probably be better to Close it as No Consensus and then Open another Nomination from scratch. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mysterious El Willstro: Seems to me the consensus is to delete. No one thinks it is acceptable as is. I would support saving the history, if you or any other editor(s) has the will to revive it to the point where it is not all WP:OR. The question is: Can anything of the current article be saved as grounded in WP:RS as it is right now? If not, what is the point of keeping any of it or its history, even if it is ultimately notable? Someone could always try and recreate it later if they can show it is notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. DrStrauss talk 20:45, 4 March 2017 (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.