Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Performance (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 no consensus. There's no doubting that the article as it is is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Whether that means it should be deleted and whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, it seems nobody can agree on. Thus, no consensus, I'm afraid folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Performance

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

An article on this subject was previously deleted at this ___location, but this version looks quite different. However, this still appears to be a WP:OR essay that appears heavily based on one source (i.e., the Dixon book which was the main source used for the first incarnation of this article; I am unsure if some of the content is actually a copyvio). Much as the previously deleted version, it looks like an attempt to expand a dictionary definition with a lot of vague opinion/OR and with very little actual coherent encyclopedic content. Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We created the page for a university assignment, we did try to find as many different sources as possible for this to increase the level of credibility but there is not much out there to refer to. The book itself has loads of reference within it. We split up the section to research and as we only had to write 3000 obviously we have not covered the whole topic area we were told to just focus on the histroy and introduction into the subject area. I have stated this on the talk page for Digitale Performance so anyone feels free to add contributions. I understand that it is one source and a definition widely put but like I said we had a word limit so could not cover all topics. --Alannamm90 (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)— Alannamm90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasons. It's definitely an WP:OR essay. To Alannamm90, I heavily recommend that you talk to your professor about not assigning any projects that involve creating pages on wikipedia, at least not creating any without the article going through the Afc process first. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from contributing but not everything needs to be here on the wiki and sourcing doesn't really disguise that this is still an original research essay. At least putting it through the Afc process would help save our time and yours if it's found to be something that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. (That way we won't have to continue deleting it if it's unencyclopedic and you won't waste your time re-adding it if it's found to be unencyclopedic in any format.) I also heavily recommend that your professor look into using Wikia since that's a site where you can create your own wikis without having to go through Wikipedia and it won't get (potentially) continuously deleted. I don't mean to sound harsh, I'm just trying to save everyone time and effort. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: Here are links to Wikia and to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Again, I sort of discourage making pages on wikipedia purely for grade purposes because 1) it can potentially be deleted, causing you to re-add it (and potentially get blocked for repeatedly adding it if an admin believes you're being disruptive) and 2) many people will edit the piece, meaning that you might lose grade points for something done by someone else. Again, not trying to be hostile, I'm just trying to let you know that adding pages for homework on wikipedia without at least trying to do it via the Afc article wizard isn't really a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional: I found the page of the professor who is assigning his student with the projects of creating pages on Wikipedia, if any admin wants to discuss this with him: User:ToniSant. I left a message about going through Wikia or Afc, but this is something that really should go through an admin or someone on a little higher authority than I am (which is no authority, lol). Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional additional: Just to let guys know, the previous delete was for a page added by last semester's students back in 2010. This article was created by a new batch of students, so odds are the page was written differently than the last version. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Further Comment : The article has many problems but I suggest it should be reduced to a stub rather than deleted. There's already an article on Digital theatre, which is actually a subset or type of Digital Performance, and some of the material on that page would actually be better placed on the new article page and/or cross referenced from one article to the other. There are also many other sources about this subject, but the creators of the page failed to cite these properly or understand the conventions of writing an article for Wikipedia, which is what I believe has led to the proposed AfD we're discussing. Digital Performance is a notable subject that deserves its own article, and certainly fits the guidelines/criteria for notability on Wikipedia. While I respect the PoV of Deletionists, I happen to be an Inclusionist! :-) --ToniSant (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2011 (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.