Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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. ✗plicit 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [1] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [2]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [3]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (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.