Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brookfield Theatre for the Arts


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Brookfield Theatre for the Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

0 indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG in any way. Strictly promo John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly I am not creating this site for promotion, as I am not a representative of the Brookfield Theatre for the Arts in any way (referencing my years of experience making various edits to an assortment of articles on Wikipedia). This theatre is not only housed in a historic school building that holds significant history to the area, but is also a notable landmark in that it houses a notable production company. I feel this proposal for deletion is inappropriate for these reasons, and rather than request for a deletion of the page, a notice requesting more references at the top would be sufficient.--AirportExpert (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  02:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  02:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure how something made in 1880s and converted in 1950s is promotional. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  02:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When I see an article for a commercial venture that is virtually entirely self sourced, when I see language used that is reflected from the article in the creator's comment above, I see promotional. There is nothing inherently notable about a building being old, I found 0 sources discussing the place in detail, it's not on any registries. All searches found was announcements of events there, or bits marginally connected to events held there. None of the events were particularly notable. In short, all we've got is a theater being a theater. Now if you've got offline sources that can sufficiently develop a reasonable article, that's all good...that's what we have draftspace and userspace for. There's no reason to put an article in mainspace that has no more in it than the place exists and they are proud of that. John from Idegon (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is a 2007 article from the Danbury News-Times discussing this community theatre's 50th anniversary and attesting in some detail to its status as a significant local cultural institution.  I question whether this is enough by itself to get over the notability bar as it's currently being enforced, but it's a start, anyway. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the nomination for deletion was posted, several references were added indicating notability through past events which are held here, all of which are significant to the local area. These references are from credible news sources that are entirely independent of the theatre, and sources are continuing to be added to go above and beyond what is required to establish notability. All of the problems that were addressed have now been amended, thus entirely establishing notability of the subject matter.--AirportExpert (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert


 * Keep the former school and the theater in its renovated gymnasium are both notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete: See change of !vote comments below  Keep: See 2nd change comments below; To the existing Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut). Since the article already exists and the building is included in the historic district this would be the proper place to include the article content per the source: National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet (section 7 page 13) and livingplaces.com Historical Background section, 4th paragraph (behind the library at 184 Whisconier Road). Otr500 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I could support a very selective merge to the district, emphasis on the history and only a passing mention of the current theatre operation, per WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. Still seeing no notability for the theatre, but approaching something for the structure. If this were to be kept, I'd suggest the name of the school to be the appropriate title of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the creator of this article, I acknowledge that without the history of the building and school the theater would possess limited notability to justify a Wikipedia article. Although the school may possess more historical notability than the theater, the existence of the theater is also what gives the school enough notability for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. Since the current use of the site is as a theater, I would advocate that the page title remain as is. If anyone were to do any further inquiry into either the school or the theater, there is significantly more information about the school coming from websites pertaining to the theater than from any other sources. This solution not only eliminates confusion for anyone conducting research, but also allows two topics that possess degrees of notability to be included on Wikipedia. I also redirected "Curtis School for Boys" to this page.--AirportExpert (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert


 * Delete Just a WP:ROTM community theatre, which exists in many cities and towns across the good old US of A. The building is notable as a part of the "collection" in the historic district, but not really in and of itself. Acnetj (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: While the theatre alone may not meet the threshold of notability, I would argue that the school does (thus making the building notable as well). I made my case earlier for what I believe the article should be titled, but I would be open to a page move from "Brookfield Theatre for the Arts" to "Curtis School for Boys", if it came down to the article being merged or deleted simply over the name.--AirportExpert (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert


 * Comments on change of delete !vote above See below; I would have expected no less. I don't see anyone arguing that the building does not have notability. It is listed, as a group listing, which is from the nominator/town/etc..., that already has an article. However, as closers sometimes just count votes instead of !vote comments I have changed my "!vote" to prevent a "no consensus" since there is no stand-alone notability for the subject. Otr500 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Charming old & historic building. Defunct school in which it is located has some notability. Some of the sources already on the page support notability.  And some of the Theatre's  productions are covered in the New York Times, as well as the Danbury and Bridgeport papers (easier to see in a good news archive).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * search tip try both theatRE and theatER. The good, grey New YOrk times routinely misspells it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some interesting hits in books, , .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Okay, so, article needs to link to Virgil Geddes, on whom an article ought to be written NYTimes obit here: Virgil Geddes Is Dead; Ex-Playwright Was 92. Here is the search onhis name inthe YTimes archive .   I presume he was blacklisted for being part of the League of American Writers - bit of a career-killer, that. However, he founded in ~1931 a theatrical retreat in Brookfield that spawned this "Theatre".   I think this should be closed now as keep, and the article improved.    However, if it gets extended for a week, the 1907 rustic or craftsman-style building should be looked into and the AfD listed under architecture-related.  There must be sourcing on a building that looks like this in a posh corner of Connecticut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If you think the school is notable for some reason to deserve an article, why not just start working on it and merge or redirect this article. I would like to know whether the school itself is indeed notable or not. Acnetj (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If because you think it is notable because of the theater's relationship with its founder, why not just redirect to the founder. Are there other reasons for notability beyond that one person? And now an article has been created about him and frankly just by reading that article I don't see anything notable about him either. Acnetj (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This theater: its history and its building are notable in several ways - I had improved the article and sourcing, and, although it could be improved further, I think notability has been established.  It is more functional to have an article than to redirect to either the defunct school; or to the historic district; or to any one notable person associated with the theater.  I note also that the productions have long been and continue to be covered in the major regional dailies (New York Times, Hartford Courant, Connecticut Post in addition to the The News-Times.  I suspect that the nomination sprang not only from the fact that article was new and brief, but from the fact that the theater is old and has operated under varying names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Don, how do we access the National Register listing for this building/District? Link seems to be dead and I'm having trruble finding it by searching.  ThaksE.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's something temporarily wrong with the National Park Service's indirect links to NRHP listing documents. To get the 1990 document written by David Ransom (used as source in the Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) article, which I guess I created or edited), try this direct link for the text and this direct link for photos for now (found via going to https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/91000992 first).  The text doesn't discuss a theater but does discuss school buildings. --Doncram (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is past and current history going on with this building and current theater organization, a community center of sorts.  It is apparently a contributing building in a NRHP-listed historic district, and we have articles about many others like that.  It is not as completely obvious a "Keep" as if the building was separately NRHP-listed on its own, but there are mentions in multiple sources and coverage that adds up. --Doncram (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments Also, it is a community theatre, which basically IMHO should qualify it. I have commented before that we need to have wp:TOURISTATTRACTION (currently a redlink), probably as an essay first, towards becoming a formal guideline, to cover the obvious significance (including repeated mentions in guidebooks and event calendars) for items like this. --Doncram (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2nd change of !vote comments: This is funny and charming but I now agree we should "keep" per above change of !vote. Being a "Charming old & historic building" is not a valid criteria nor is my new favorite statement; the "past and current history" comment. I guess this is the recording of current time that elapses in attoseconds so is history while still on-going? I provided a link that I guess was missed that leads to the descriptive page of the buildings (Curtis School built a gymnasium (1907), 184 Whisconier Road) included in the "group" historic listing.
 * Reason for Keep !vote: I have no valid policy or guideline rationale for keep but neither do the other keep !votes (over merge to the current NRHP parent article), as sometimes only headcounts and "I like it" actually do matter. There is already a parent article and no clear reason or need for a split. As it stands, with the exception of being a tourist attraction (currently per policy this would be against 3 instances of What Wikipedia is not), the encyclopedic notability is tied to being NRHP listed. It seems we might want one particular building pulled out of a list that includes 67 contributing buildings that "already" has the "current" Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) article, supported by sources as "contributing buildings" and in need of expanding. I do contribute to historical buildings so we should keep since on reflection, "I like it" and it gives thousands of more possibilities. On that note and my main new rationale for keep: The town of Roxbury has a "group listing" of 32 buildings on the NRHP. The Bridgewater, Connecticut Center Historic District has 60 historic buildings. Newtown Historic District (also needing expanding) has an astounding "225 contributing buildings, 2 other contributing structures, 1 contributing site, and 2 contributing objects.". There are more in Southbury. These are only the ones around Lake Lillinonah and a total of 1,500 in the state. That is a lot of promising red-links. I am thinking we just forget the parent articles and start several hundred (thousand) individual stubs linking to the now very stub parent articles for deorphaning. New stubs over expanding current articles actually counts more when looking at the stats of article coverage Wikipedia offers (looks far better right?) and some editors can see their dreams that all things in the world deserve a stand-alone article. I am game to game the system so let's do this and close as keep otherwise I will be forced to change my !vote yet again (back to: there is already an article for inclusion) if another "merge" or "delete" (because it doesn't belong here) shows up. For the actual record: I really don't mind there being an article but it should only be after an agreed upon split because of parent article getting too big. Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Building description: Per NRHP description page (section number 7 page 13 shown above); C 184 Whisconier Rd, (69-9, 25) 1907 Curtis School Gymnasium. sign on 1-story rubble-stone hipped-roof Rustic/ building Arts-and-Crafts building with diagonally glazed wooden casement windows. Wide roof overhang is supported by large paired scrolled brackets. Rubble-stone chimneys. Now Brookfield Playhouse. (Photograph 13). This corresponds to the current address of the building. Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just mentioning that a community theater has long occupied the building. The theatre has existed for over 6 decades, and its notable predecessor organization existed for the three previous decades (transition - which took place in the 1950s - may have been related to the fact that Brookfield resident and theatre founder Virgil Geddes was blacklisted by the UnAmerican Affairs Committee). I could wish  had felt able to close this before it became surprisingly over-heated for an article about a small theatre that performs in an old building with a bit of rustic charm.13:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)


 * Reply: You have mentioned the building in what seems to be a smug way "an old building with a bit of rustic charm" and I have not been there. I have history and the fact that no matter what has transpired "in the building" the fact that the history is connected "to the building" has remained unchanged. These historic buildings need to be preserved because they are a tangeble history that can be touched, admired in many cases, and even walked through. Some people have no qualms with destroying these historic buildings or even statues as though history should fade away. I hope that is not you. I realize what you are stating, do not disagree with some points, and see improvements you have effected but can you not see confusion? This is not an article actually (as currently presented) about a community theater venue, being a collaborative form of fine art, entertainment, community productions, or even about the organization that hosts a theater, but more about a building with mentioning of diverse forms of theater art held within. The images are of "buildings", the lead content states, "The theater has a capacity of 135 people...", the history has some about the school but more about the building, and the "theater" (arts) section is relegated to the bottom before the references. Trying to muster notability, especially with the current content, for an organization would fail WP:notability, GNG, and even the lessor Notability. Some of the current sourcing (not historical or about the building) do add what can be seen as promotion. Apparently the the "community theater" published the works of Virgil Geddes from 1932 to 1934 and the House Un-American Activities Committee was formed in 1938. The "blacklisting" affected hollywood writers and stars more after 1947. If he was blacklisted sometimes after 1938 this would be at least four years after leaving the subject "theater". I can't see how this would be of importance to a "community theater in any way except someone "famous" was there. As far as I can see the man worked as a postmaster that was not affected by any "list" as for as Brookfield is concerned.
 * I really am trying to get a handle on something that seems straight-forward but that plain English (British or American) does not seem to clarify. I can understand you wanting to record the "community theater" but then every non-descript "theater" in every town, with unknown participants, performing community renditions of community or famous plays and a couple of sources (usually one primary source will suffice especially if historical) would qualify for stand-alone status and any process to correct this takes 50 times longer than creating the article. This is why it has become acceptable to just create articles about everything in the world because if local consensus can win, maybe a lack of participants, or COI interference if all else fails, a lot of articles enjoy very long extended terms sometimes with ZERO sources and are argued as WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. I stated I am alright with this article but there is "clear" community accepted consensus for NRHP buildings that usually have multiple acceptable sources, are historical, and very much tangible recording of history, as well as currently notable. Creating these "added stubs" means there will be unnecssary duplication because any sourced content in articles like this could not be contested in a NRHP article. In this case the NRHP listing, that was submitted by the town to have a "historic district" (maybe there is town or city tax breaks) listed all these buildings in a group as many in the state have done.
 * The Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) article was creaed 20/6/2008 and this article 4/4/2018. My reasoning, that has failed to get an acceptable reply, is why try to fork these articles instead of doing what we are suppose to do and expand the parent article which can cover the building and various uses when the encyclopedic notability is not that strong. When an article gets too big (usually with a better rating than start) consensus can decide an acceptable fork. If there is some actual benefit to creating multiple hundreds (or thousands) of stub or start articles over a better possibly c-class article let me know. If it is valid I will stop creating actual "start-class" articles out the gate and just make referenced stubs. Other than that I CANNOT see a plus benefit to the rationale. The bottom line, sarcasm aside, I am on your side (you saw that right) just not happy that we cannot just make good articles over stubby-stubs or lower start-class articles. I am just as passionate about historic buildings, structures, and even statues as you appear to be about a venue but I do support such areas of history. Good luck and have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources have been produced in this discussion demonstrating the notability of the building, the school and the theater group. It might be possible to merge some of this content elsewhere but that is a discussion that can take place outside of AfD inasmuch no consensus has developed here. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say it's time to close this discussion as a "keep". The idea that the Brookfield Theatre for the Arts is notable enough for its own independent page appears to be the overall consensus of the discussion. Any proposals to merge/duplicate specific information at this point should be made in a new section on the talk page of this article, as well as the talk page of the Brookfield Center Historic District. --AirportExpert
 * That comment was by AirportExpert, the article creator and first "Keep" voter. I agree.  I voted "keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2018 (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.