Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Anza Theatre


 * 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. Salvio giuliano 08:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

De Anza Theatre

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks sources, appears to fail WP:GNG. Can't find many online either, but if they're available consider Draftify until they're added into article Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * KEEP this is a good article. There is no reason to delete. Evangp (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear policy-based comments after the substantial work that has been done on this article since the nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well-written article about a clearly notable subject. Serratra (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC))
 * Keep I just added a bunch of stuff including that it was designed by S. Charles Lee, photographed by Julius Shulman, site of a test screening of Singin' in the Rain etc. jengod (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither the architecture nor its history as a theater (movies, then live acts) make it notable. David notMD (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added context on significance of Lee and Shulman, extended detail on architectural elements and building style, building use history, design integrity, that it is considered eligible for California Register of Historic Resources, but not NHRP, et al. jengod (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The California Register would still be significant. Even if it was declined for the NRHP, an in-depth architectural study would have been done before submission. It's potentially registered at the State level, just not the national level. I'd still consider that notable. To be fair, the NRHP is really an honorary listing, it doesn't offer any level of federal protection beyond certain tax breaks. See here "Under Federal Law, the listing of a property in the National Register places no restrictions on what a non-federal owner may do with their property up to and including destruction, unless the property is involved in a project that receives Federal assistance, usually funding or licensing/permitting". I think this is still a notable structure. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Note the historic resources survey's fairly comprehensive review of the place (on PDF pages 76-79 of https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=31369) has only been used in the article to make the somewhat negative statement that it's not NRHP-eligible because it's not well enough preserved.  None of the positive evaluative statements in the review are used, nor is it cited for any of many facts that I think go beyond what's available in the (lesser) sources that are cited;  I am guessing the review was found only after the article was mostly written.  Useable material there includes statement that the property "is an excellent and rare example of a Streamline Modeme movie theater in Riverside....While the [Streamline Moderne] style was popular throughout Southern California during the 1930s, there are few examples simply because there was so little construction activity during the Depression. The De Anza Theater exhibits significant character-defining features of the style, including horizontally-oriented masses, flat roof, and curved walls. Other significant features include the fluted pylon with prominent signage, and the continuous bands of fixed horizontal fins over the windows that are reminiscent of speedlines."  And there's more to use.  I will construct a better reference to this review/report in the article.  In general, a place having NRHP listing is useful in Wikipedia AFD discussions to a) establish some assertion of importance (already well-enough established for this place, so NRHP listing not needed for this purpose) and b) to establish that there will exist substantial documentation about it (and in this case the 4-page report, even with its somewhat negative judgment in the end, provides that already).  Keep, there's plenty here. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. So the nominator's preference, that even if it is established good enough sources are "available consider Draftify until they're added into article" should be ignored. There are sources, there's no requirement the article needs to be rewritten to include them, this AFD is ready to be closed (keep). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, plenty of sources. No denying there is room for improvement, but this seems to meet WP:GNG. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 6 February 2023 (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.