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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nervous Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is wholly original research, by Scott Miller[1], given the final paragraph: "All meterial quoted with permission from Scott Miller's article, Inside The Nervous Set, from his upcoming book Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and Musicals."

There is, too a neutrality issue in that the article disparages a previous production & producer, whilst Scott Miller is the producer of a contemporary production which is treated most favorably in the article.

Other than to a Scott Miller article, the article is entirely uncited.

Given the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and definite WP:COI issues in the article, I feel it would be better to delete this one and start again - as a clear marker that we do not wish Wikipedia to be used for opinion pieces - than to seek to cut this one down to its bare facts with the possibility of an ensuing revert war, hints of which are given in the current article's history. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough sources, original research, COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The question is not whether it is a good article; the question is whether this musical is notable. DGG (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A question, perhaps. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion for other valid reasons for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The minutiae of copyright is not my strong suit, but I thought it wasn't sufficient to quote chunks of material from elsewhere with the rationale "used by permission". Doesn't the author have to contact Wikimedia officially, and shouldn't there be a GDFL-compatible statement published with the source material? It really does read like promo at present, and needs a lot of work to get in into an NPOV, non-OR, non-COI state. Karenjc 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author has provided an OTRS permission for another of his articles based on the same source & would doubtless do the same for this one if asked. Although technically a copyvio right now, in spirit he has provided a GFDL permission. I think there are more persuasive grounds for deletion right now than the copyright issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: You can't just say "quoted with permission". How do we know there is permission? I put a copyvio tag on the article. I am sure that the musical IS notable - It ran on broadway after a major regional run and starred a number of notable actors. Lots of broadway shows on Wikipedia are less notable. But the entire article is just a copy and paste from Miller's website, and that's no way to write a WP article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Don't know if the show is notable or not but almost none of the article is verifiable and much seems like a possible advert for a new book by the author of the article. ChicagoPerfArts (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) — ChicagoPerfArts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• CommentThe article author admits OR: [2] --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (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.