Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Barraca


 * 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The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A Barraca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to who removed prod (no reason given) and  who applied prod and notability tag. Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on all the copious references on pt:A Barraca. Of course there are few in English, but that doesn't count for anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not even see an assertion of notability. If this basic standard can be met I can change my mind. Why is this theatre company out of the countless theatre companies notable? There needs to be a statement in the article as to why it is notable and this needs to be backed up by reliable sources. As it stands all I can tell is that the company existed and produced some plays, nothing to indicate they are notable. Chillum 15:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The good work done by user:Aymatth2 and others has brought this article up to standards. Chillum 15:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No inherent notability for businesses and a strong lack of 3rd party sources to prove some sort of notability for this one. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Not the first time has got it wrong at AFD.  should never be allowed to comment on content period.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is just wonderful that you have claimed someone is wrong and pointed out that I don't belong here, it would also be just great if you addressed the concerns that have been presented here. You have added nothing to the debate other than your dislike for those involved. Your comment is unlikely to be given any weight by the closer as it stands. Chillum 15:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is this article like many are notable Chillum but editors cannot get off of their lazy arses and look externally. They view articles as they are and assume "oh it's a short stub, or it's inadequately sourced, therefore it's not notable". A notable subject will always be a notable subject, one line stub or 50 kb B class article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You would do far better by pointing out that the article has improved significantly since I last gave my opinion. Using evidence based arguments instead of shitting on the contributions of others may be a more effective way for you to make your point. Chillum 15:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the point though Chillum. The point is AFDs are plagued with a bunch of clueless editors who are a grave threat to content on here across the site. If it wasn't for people like myself or Aymatth they'd get deleted when with a bit of work they meet content requirements. We can't build an encyclopedia if people don't try to help substandard articles. In future I suggest you look for possible sources and also note a foreign language article in assessing notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of the people you started here by belittling the contributions of have now changed their mind in response to the good work that has been done with the article. I hope you can realize that you can make your point without discouraging other editors. Chillum</b> 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks to for the amount of work they have put in. I'm not particularly convinced that it meets WP:ORG but it looks like it meets WP:GNG. Nomination withdrawn. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.