Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aputheatre


 * 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, sourcing concerns were never really addressed, but some trivial sources were added. It shall remain to be seen if acceptable ones can be found, posters and a press release aren't, but some assert they can do better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Aputheatre

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability asserted. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is unreferenced. There are not enough Google hits (about 300). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Shalom. Handschuh-talk to me 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this article may be redeemable. Notability is certainly asserted. I don't know if there are any particular notability guidelines for theatre companies, but by analogy with the guidelines for bands the fact that this company has toured nationally and internationally should be enough to make them notable, if it is verifiable. There seems to be an attempt to provide a reference: “A significant shift in Aids Theatre” - (Plays and Players May 1990), although it is not wikified. It's unclear whether this is supposed to apply to the preceding or the succeding text. If the reference does confirm that this company toured as stated then the article should be kept. Phil Bridger 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions.   —Phil Bridger 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I came across many pages for this group while doing research on John Roman Baker, another Afd nomination lately. He was kept and the article improved. The same can happen here. For those who don't know, this group is the one which produced several of Baker's plays. If he's notable, then so is the group, in my eyes. Jeffpw (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's not a true syllogism, Jeffpw - Baker's plays were/are probably produced by many groups, and not all the groups are notable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the content of the article makes many assertions of notability; what it lacks are citations to support such assertions. I have added a couple of Template:Fact instances where I think really key references should be added; I do know and agree with the annoying nature of that template, but I thought it useful in this case.  Being generally unfamiliar with the topic, I argue the article should be kept on the weight of these assertions of notability ... unless it can be demonstrated that the topic is the body of a hoax, which I don't believe that it is. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do some work on it this eveinng to improve it. The article is messy, no doubt about it (something that drives me nuts), but it is definitely notable. There are probably many more Dutch than English refs, so I'll search them out. Jeffpw (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Assertions of notability aren't enough - if they can't be verified, assertions are no more than cruft. Unless the article provides a source for one or more of those assertions of notability, it should be deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  18:26, 23 November 2007 (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.