Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buriel Clay Theater


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Buriel Clay Theater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable theater created by a upe sock. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - this seems like the sort of topic which would be notable. It has been around for awhile (since the 1980s as far as I can verify), but I don't really think that makes it "historical" as the article claims.  Otherwise, I'm having a hard time finding in-depth coverage about this, even from local San-Francisco sources.  According to the article African-American Shakespeare Company the theater is inside a city-owned complex, so the theater structure itself is highly unlikely to be or become notable.  Creator is not identified as a sock, but certainly UPE is involved.  I can't find notability here by any definition, despite searching for sources.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment a theatre company would usually be notable I think. What is “UPE”? —Doncram (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you figure “usually notable”? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That reply seems kind of unfriendly, unnecessarily. Sorry I can’t format better from my current device. What is a “upe sock” please? If there is a sockpuppet report or other evidence about what that is, could someone please link? —Doncram (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth was unfriendly about my question? I am on a mobile device and responded as efficiently as possible. UPE is easy to put into the search bar but it means undisclosed paid editing, so with that being said can you please explain what policy guideline or outcome supports such a statment as a “a theater company would usually be notable?” CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * UPE is easy to put into the search bar but that doesn't help; there is no definition of "UPE" and no mention of "undisclosed paid editing" [at] wp:UPE, which I had looked up already.  The best guess (which I knew didn't make sense) I could make beforehand was that it stood for unpaid editing.    Thank you for answering what it stands for, to you and perhaps to some others;  if it is not defined I think the term should be avoided.
 * Anyhow there is no evidence here in this AFD or at the article Talk page that there was any paid editing here, and frankly I highly doubt that someone was paid for this page. I removed the negative tag about this from the article.  Further at the editor's Talk page I see that they have been blocked with accusation of possibly engaging in paid editing, though I see no real evidence there either.  I see the editor created a couple pages about musicians that might have involved copyvios, but there is nothing wrong apparent here.
 * About demand made that I explain myself, I was basically agreeing with User:78.26 who stated "this seems like the sort of topic which would be notable." African-American Shakespeare Company as a company is notable;  I am very aware that historic theatre spaces/buildings are very often notable and listed on the National Register of Historic Places because of their importance to their communities (not saying this one is listed). The term "MAD" in the deletion nominator's chosen username suggests anger, and the AFD itself is a demand that others pay attention, and the nomination seems grounded in anger about paid editing without evidence.  In this context then not answering a question about jargon used in the nomination and making a different demand upon the questioner (me) instead, comes across as angry to me.  I hope this helps User:Chrissymad understand where I was coming from in reacting to their comment which I found inappropriate. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mad is part of my actual name, so your insinuation that it is any indication of my state of mind is nothing more than an egregious personal attack and I expect an apology. You need to stick to the topic at hand instead of pontificating a good faith users motivation based on a policy abiding username. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  10:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What rubbish. I gave you the courtesy of explaining part of how your editing rubbed me the wrong way;  there is no personal attack in that.  You could simply acknowledge being wrong that "UPE" is defined anywhere obvious in Wikipedia.  And you could acknowledge that there is no evidence this article was created by paid editing.  Even if it was, it is a notable topic.  And you might consider whether making silly demands comes across as angry or not. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep on with the attacks then. I am under no obligation to have regard for your feelings over a perfectly acceptable and normal response. You however are obligated to follow WP:CIVILITY as am I. My responses to you have been nothing but civil and yet you've attacked editors repeatedly over something you don't seem to understand. If you don't believe it was paid editing, ask the blocking administrator instead of accusing myself and another good faith editor of slander. I'll keep waiting for your apology for a blatant personal attack too. As far as UPE being obvious, you could have, I don't know, clicked the tag? Typed it into the search box? You have 150k edits, you're not new at this. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The attack in question was the username comment, as she said. If you think there is something wrong with her username, it belongs on the appropriate page, not here. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, the term UPE is in fact defined in the section that WP:UPE redirects to. "Paid editing without such a declaration is referred to as Undeclared Paid Editing (UPE)". This text has been present since 20 June 2018. Chrissymad could have linked it in the nomination, but once one has searched for it there is no excuse for not knowing what it means. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, my bad for not finding that text when I looked there first and again when I looked again later. Funny that Chrissymad was wrong in exactly what UPE means;  when I returned there I think I might have searched on "undisclosed" there found nothing.  It is a bit buried.  Offhand it could be formatted better to make it more visible, and wp:UPE could be more specifically redirected to an anchor at the exact definition.
 * But, rubbish rubbish rubbish about a personal attack in my statement that "The term "MAD" in the deletion nominator's chosen username suggests anger....". It does suggest that to me, and I bet it has suggested that to other editors ChrissyMAD has been in conflict with, although perhaps they are unaware of it.  As if names have no importance in suggesting anything;  please tell that to advertisers paying trillions of dollars for brands.  It is not just "mad" in their name, it is MAD in angry bolded shouting. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . You cannot judge the merits of one's opinions in an AfD off their username. If someone commented here with a pink signature 50px by 50px featuring a giant unicorn, you should not write off their opinions as immature, nor attack them for this. The "MAD" is capitalized as her entire username is capitalized, and the bold has nothing to do with anger. To quote from WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Vermont (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In this edit I am striking comments of mine above, which I have been criticized for, and about which I agree at least that they were off-topic relative to the merits of the article in question in this AFD. I was asked elsewhere to delete some or all of my comments, but that would make the others' comments look out of place and I think that is generally not wanted.  Perhaps someone could simply collapse this thread as off-topic. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Couldn't find indepth coverage, it all seems to be "here is the current play", nothing about the theatre itself. --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, although probably move to African American Arts & Culture Complex and develop further. This is one of the theatres in that complex.  Assuming this is about a somewhat historic, somewhat prominent theatre space, I would be glad for this to be kept outright if any more direct sourcing can be found.  It is useful to define whom the place is named for, and I believe it is common for readers to look up information about theatre venues in Wikipedia.  It is a theatre venue and/or a theatre company;  we routinely have coverage of large and historical venues (although it is debatable whether this one is large enough or historical enough); and there is an obvious good alternative to redirection (which would be redirect/merge if African American Arts & Culture Complex already existed, but that is a redlink currently, so move and develop to be about the entire complex instead).  The complex is larger and more obviously notable;  it is a bigger public attraction (e.g. listed as a travel destination in TripAdvisor).  Per wp:ATD we are obligated to seek alternatives, here is a good one. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I could see supporting that, but I did a search and couldn't find very much about the AAA&CC either, unfortunately. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unable to find any significant coverage. It may be more likely that an Buriel Clay is notable, but this theatre does not appear to be. MB 02:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have developed the article somewhat, and revised it to be about the larger complex, preparing for move after this AFD is closed.  It was already about that, in that it did include the "African American Arts & Culture Complex" name in bold.  It includes dance spaces, the Sargent Johnson Gallery, a multi-use space, a conference room, and more.  It seems to be a community center founded in 1989 which is no doubt significant in its neighborhood.  I added a source or two more;  there are more available. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, per everyone (mostly). Vermont (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't find anything to convince me it meets notability guidelines, nor is there significant coverage.   20:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing that it is notable. Only a small amount of local coverage. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references aren't about the venue but the different events held there. A movie or play may be notable but the local theatre where you see it isn't. Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 24 August 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.