Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrily We Roll Along (musical)

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. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merrily We Roll Along (musical)

One of them should be redirected, though it appears the musical was the more well-known and popular of the two versions - it may be better off for that to be the remaining article, with the information about the play merged in. (is that confusing enough?) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article appeared as it is now under the title Merrily We Roll Along. For some reason, an editor thought it was necessary to divide it into two articles, one for the play and one for the musical, but by doing so the play article ended up being only a few lines long, which doesn't make sense. Since Merrily We Roll Along (play) contains ALL the information, shouldn't that article remain and just delete Merrily We Roll Along (musical)? ConoscoTutto 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I split the play and musical versions of this work into two separate articles. The play (by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart) was first produced on Broadway in 1934 and ran for 155 performances. The musical, with a book by George Furth and lyrics and music by Stephen Sondheim, was first produced on Broadway in 1981 and closed after 16 performances. I believe that by combining the two articles, it discourages editors from expanding the article about the play. I also note that User:ConoscoTutto recombined the two articles without notifying me or making any notation on the musical article's talk page. -- Ssilvers 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I made a notation at [1]. You, on the other hand, split the original article without making any notation or putting it up for discussion first, so how am I in the wrong but you're not? As far as expanding the article about the play, that would be fine if there was considerably more that could be said about it, but there isn't. If there was, you should have written it when you split the original article. ConoscoTutto 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, blocked User:SFTVLGUY2, I see that you are back to your bad old ways, now posting as User:ConoscoTutto. -- Ssilvers 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so hard for you to engage in a civil discussion and stick to the facts? Your implication doesn't have anything to do with this issue at all. Why are you throwing up a smoke screen instead of admitting you were wrong in accusing me of not making any notation on the musical article's talk page? ConoscoTutto 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, including moving the relevant links - a very substantial job. You undid all my work without discussing it first. This violates Wikipedia policy on edit warring. -- Ssilvers 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I "undid" was the division you made. Looking at the history, I would have no way of knowing you had moved relevant links. Please stop trying to make it look like I acted maliciously. That wasn't my intent at all. And once again you raise the issue of making edits without discussion, even though you split the original article without making any notation on the talk page or putting it up for discussion first. Why do you keep accusing me of not following a procedure you ignored yourself? ConoscoTutto 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true: I put a disambiguation notice leading readers of each article to the other. That is the most prominent way to note that there is a new article with a simlar name. -- Ssilvers 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1981 musical is a re-working of the original play with music and lyrics supplied by Stephen Sondheim, who has 15 major Broadway pieces to his credit. This addition makes the work a completely separate piece of art. One would not combine Pygmalion with My Fair Lady either. I support maintaining separate entries permanently. --RayBirks 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One would not combine Pygmalion and My Fair Lady because there's enough to say about each one to warrant separate articles. Looking at the history, it seems the original article about Merrily We Roll Along was strictly about the musical and didn't even mention its source. That information was added to the introduction and the article remained that way for months until Ssilvers divided it and left the play article only a few sentences long. As they say, why fix something if it ain't broke? ConoscoTutto 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I hesitate to wade into the SFTVLGUY2 - Ssilvers feud, I tend to agree with SSilvers that separating the two articles encourages expansion of the article about the play. The last time I had seen the article, there was one sentence on the play in an article about the better-known musical. It seems to me that the play is notable enough (notable creators, played on Broadway, etc.) that it warrants its own article. Just because it currently exists as only a few lines does not mean that a full, well-written article couldn't eventually be created. Why not start it now? — Music Maker 5376 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI would have made the selfsame point about Pygmalion & My Fair Lady had not Ray Birks anticipated me. The defence made by the proposer for deletion seems to me self-contradictory, tending in fact to underline the desirability of an article about the play as well as one about the musical. Tim Riley 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

Keep both articles separately, they are both notable enough. Trim text properly, if the play is a stub then it's a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles, (in fact three, there's the song too) clearly different entities - and disambiguation is needed in any case. Kaufman and Hart are an important collaboration and their history shouldn't just be conflated with Sondheim's. Surprised that the play article seems to have been reverted to include all the info about the musical, after this AfD was posted. Conosco did the right thing to list it here for discussion and (I think) the wrong thing by anticipating the outcome, but I don't attribute any malice. The play article should be extended beyond its (now non-current) stubby state. Kbthompson 09:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both articles. The play one is several paragraphs long, not several sentences. BTW, I hope I'm adding this right, I guessed on how and imitated other entries.

--Waladil Surewood (not a username) 7:35 PM 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep both. Common sense suggests that the play and the musical should have two separate entries, cross-linked or disambiguated at the top, and cross-referenced in the notes or in the body of the article. Significantly, perhaps, I came here looking for the Eddie Cantor song, "Merrily We Roll Along," (AKA the Merrie Melodies cartoons theme) and discovered that there were also a play and a musical. Who knew? That's WikiPedia, folks."````

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.