Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Demoiselle de magasin

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 keep. ansh666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Demoiselle de magasin

La Demoiselle de magasin (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)

Not encyclopedic. A one-line article, notability close to zero, and nearly 8 years of being a useless stub.
The article had a grand total of 177 views for the entire year of 2017, and those probably mostly due to error by people looking for the painting, not this play.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for closing admin :
  The user, who created this article, was indefinite blocked in Oct.2010 for abusing multiple accounts.
  Before that, the user (Starzynka) had created a great number of articles.
  I picked one at random, and ... articles seemingly created without any care for notability.
  I bet a long cruft list can be compiled.
  -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I usually prod these things. Most of his articles are stubs with 1 or zero sources created by a bot with up to 7 creations per minute.-- » Shadowowl | talk 19:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And not just articles about obscure literary works; he also seemed to have taken pride in creating an article for nearly every house in Serbia.
: e.g. Kravlji Do which is village w. a population of 355 people.
Do you know of a way to automate cleaning up this mess?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexterPointy: Maybe everything can be draftified just like that happened to 02Blythed's cricket stubs. I don't see that happen to the village stubs though (not the village parts which you mentioned), as there are too many it exists people who will defend those stubs. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation about Serbian villages etc doesn't belong on this particular page, but yes, populated places are presumed notable according to

WP:GEOLAND, so you could probably expect some people quoting policy. Mortee (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete for failing notability and verifiability. Zero sources for a play that's been around for 105 years. If notable of inclusion as a stand alone article it should not have been hard to find some RS since then. Blue Riband► 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, many sources from 1913 would not be available online (yet).96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The play's English-language version became a notable film, Along Came Ruth. Searches are made difficult because of a well-known painting by James Tissot with the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not proof of notability, you're jumping to conclusion.
"Along Came Ruth" is a silent movie, a MGM production from 1924 (and it's also a lost movie).
An American silent movie, can not be auto-equated with a French play.
It's perfectly fair to mention the French play in the article for "Along Came Ruth", but the French play itself needs its notability proven.
(Parents also don't automatically become notable, just because their children gains notability.)
-- DexterPointy (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I search and found only a few snippet views in google Books of the fact that the play exists. There are probably reviews and sources out there, but they are not digitized yet.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge into
  WP:NBOOKS #3). I'd say that applies to plays as well. As the IP above points out, most RS are likely to be offline given the play's age. The alternative, since we haven't identified specific, in-depth, secondary coverage yet, is to merge into the existing article about the film, but discussing two plays and a film in one article feels slightly clunky. I wouldn't object to that but I would object to a flat deletion. Mortee (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]