Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Musical B@man!

:{{la|Holy Musical B@man!}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Holy Musical B@man!}})

Aaron Booth (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete The article only has one source, which is a primary (YouTube video) source. Does not meet criterion for Notability as there seem to be no third party sources, much less significant coverage. The subject already has inclusion in the Team_StarKid article (the artists apparently creating the work). The rational by the article's author is that the subject is not notable now, but may be notable later. {{xt|"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources"}} -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:Keep As quoted above, it is not notable now, but will definitely be notable in less than three weeks time. I have also said on the article's talkpage that by keeping the article, we prevent the future re-creation by over-exuberant fans with little wiki experience. A minor argument would be that the other four 'StarKid' musicals have pages, so HMB should have one too. Right now, I have just found much more significant coverage in the form of a Skype interview with exclusive preview footage [http://leakynews.com/exclusive-holy-musical-bman-interview-and-music-preview/ here]], which I will try to incorporate once I find my headphones. Eladkse (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment If you can find third party, reliable, and substantial coverage, then by all means add it to the article and I will withdraw. And precisely as per above: {{xt|"the existence"}}, not {{xt|possible future existence"}}. Citing: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

::*Query First of all, what's the minimum time for discussion before deletion?

::*Comment Due to an incident involving a cat and my headphones, I'm afraid I can't add info from that source. Having now read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, I can see that it may not be an appropriate article yet. However, I feel that deleting it at this stage is bordering on pointless, as it will likely be recreated in a two weeks time when the reviews start appearing. I still feel it should be kept, but I can't argue with the policy. Eladkse (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:::*Answer Discussions can be closed by an uninvolved admin after seven days. See: WP:CLOSEAFD -Aaron Booth (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment Here is a link about the musical by Broadway World.[http://chicago.broadwayworld.com/article/Team-StarKid-Announces-HOLY-MUSICAL-BMAN-for-March-20120223#] --Muppet321 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

::*Comment That is clearly a re-posting of a press release and not independent coverage of the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The article's creator can ask an administrator to userfy the article; that is, have it moved to a sandbox. If and only if the show become notable and references to reliable sources are added, the article can then be moved back to main space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Definitely does not meet notability atm. Userfy so it can be moved if it attracts some third party coverage.  Tigerboy1966  01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment LeakyNews did an interview with Matt Lang, Nick Lang, Brian Holden and Joe Walker, and they spoke about the show. Does LeakyNews count as third party? --Muppet321 (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::Probably not as LeakyNews seems to be a fan site, with much of the content apparently generated by users.  Tigerboy1966  02:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep According to an announcement at StarKid's YouTube account [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ7YqN6iS6s&t=106], it sounds to me like the video is going to be released this week, rather than previously announced April. Regardless, like a list of episodes of a TV series, this article inherits notability from its parents StarKid and Batman. It will certainly gain independent notability as fans of the previous StarKid and/or Batman works inevitably watch it and talk about it. You don't need a rulebook to decide this. Deleting it now, only to have it pop right back up again a week or month later, is bound to make Wikipedia look foolish and petty. If the decision is not to keep it, at least userfy it rather than deleting it.24.57.210.141 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reply I am sorry, but it is well-established that notability on Wikipedia is not inherited but must be shown independently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep As this show is opening this week it seems a bit pointless to delete it now. Within 7 days we will have a lot more information including cast list, musical and production credits, reviews, and perhaps even bios for new members of the acting troupe responsible for it.It might have been posted a little prematurely, but at this point it's best just to leave it.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.216.71 (talk)

:*Comment It probably won't be released this week because they haven't performed it yet. --208.105.17.74 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As above, we are now a week away from the performances. It seems trivial to delete the article at this stage. Eladkse (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reply We don't keep articles because someone predicts that the topic will become notable in the future. We create articles only after something is proven notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's notable now. It's highly anticipated musical by a group with a very large following. Sure, it isn't in the Broadway Times (yes, I made that one up), but it is still popular. To use an example, if J.K. Rowling were to announce an eighth Harry Potter book today, would the article be created and kept? Yes. 1) Because the series is notable; and 2) It prevents people who don't read deletion notes from recreating the article half a dozen times. Eladkse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
• Comment The problem with your analogy is that with the Harry Potter series, there in fact were numerous sources reporting on it prior to each release. This article is a prime example of why articles such as this should be created in a user subpage, or sandbox rather than just creating an article before it meets notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. Information is to be added if it is notable, not if it is speculated that it may be notable at a later date. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Incubate until it's available and reviewed in some reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete this stub per WP:CRYSTAL, there are no professional reviews of this. You can ask it for undeletion if there's press coverage in the future. Incubation is a good idea. Diego (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2012 (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.