Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival Theatre, Malvern


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Dr. Blofeld has easily improved the article to the point of acceptance. (non-admin closure) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Festival Theatre, Malvern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm unable to find substantive treatment of this venue in reliable, independent sources—just the directory entries, performance listings and reviews, and promotional material one would expect for any theater. It is only one part of a larger complex known as Malvern Theatres, which itself lacks an article, having only a redirect to Great Malvern. Since the article deals less with the venue that's its ostensible subject than with a particular play that was once performed there and since there's no evidence that there's anything noteworthy about the theater qua structure, the topic seems to fail WP:N. Deor (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I've added all I could find from books, I see 864 hits in HighBeam research. Those combined with other web sources and the official site with more details on history and productions I reckon I could produce a GA quality on this by the end of the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like there's a lot of coverage in google books. The very notable Bernard Shaw obviously thought it notable enough to premiere several of his plays in the 1930s. Another "the article is short with undue weight" it automatically must not be notable type of AFD... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The Malvern Theatre and the associated festivals are extensively documented in the literature, for example here. --Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Now that Dr. Blofeld (instead of writing an acceptable article in the first place) has flooded the article with text supported by "references" that relate to the Malvern Festival (which may indeed be notable but which is not to be identified with this theater building), that are mere passing mentions (most of them), and that do not directly support the statements they are attached to (see the reference currently numbered 1), I can see that there is no way this article is going to be deleted, even though at bottom it is just as crappy as it was to begin with. Nothing has been proved here but the ability of a Wikipedia administrator, in his role as an editor, to completely obfuscate an article with no possibility of being called to task for his misdirection and evasion. I'd withdraw the nomination were it not that I have a slim hope that someone visiting this AfD would have a crazy notion to actually check the references to see whether they actually support the notability of the theater building itself. Deor (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The festival and the theatre cannot be detatched. Along with the surrounding gardens it's the main venue for it and has been since it was founded in 1929. The fact that you nominated this and have left such a nasty remark here and talk page message telling me to not expand this further and add more crap tells me a lot about you, and wikipedia is better off without your malicious sort. Anybody feel free to check my work. The fact is this is an obviously notable theatre venue/establishment in western England and has an important place in the history of Shaw, Elgar, Priestley and others and I think I've done a damn good job in expanding this within a short space of time. My apparently false ref 1 was from the Great Malvern article and links to the main page rather than the history page, it was a stray ref, I never add citations to the lead unless it is an important fact like the 19 Shaw plays and 6 premiering there, which is now ref 1 if you'd like to confirm by doing a google book search.. The theatre has masses of sources in HighBeam which extensively document developments to the building or productions put on here. I was just getting started with the history of the place. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough good sources here to justify an article. Deor, although people may be disagreeing with you, perhaps you could just try and keep AGF in mind when responding? Your post above comes across as quite aggressive, even if that wasn't your intent. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "aggressiveness" in my post was certainly intentional. That a very experienced editor (an admin, no less) would create a manifestly unsuitable article, with no relevant sources, let it sit for seven months, and then immediately flood it with dubiously relevant junk when it is nominated for deletion does tend to get on my nerves. If an editor is not willing to actually write an article in the first place, he should just forbear from posting one. Deor (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For a start I've never been an administrator and would never wish to be, not sure why that would matter anyway. I created it purely because I was clearing red links in the Clive Mantle, an article which I bothered to "actually write to GA "in the first place" when I could have left Mantle's article as a shoddy stub, and I thought it would be more productive to blue link red links with some text and a source rather than shut off the links entirely. Other editors are free to expand the stubs I created. Why should I have to expand everything to FA standard here. especially as my writing is apparently "junk" and I'm apparently incapable of correctly writing and sourcing an article anyway. You've completed contradicted yourself Deor. If I'm a poor editor as you profess wikipedia would be safer and better off without me writing don't you think? I'm guessing given that you seem to edit geo articles and coordinates your perception of me and my work is rather more deep-rooted and you've detested some of the admittedly shoddy short stubs I created a long time ago which should probably be deleted or redirected. The reality is that you're pissed off with me Deor not really because of the original article, but because you have a long standing issue with me as an editor and because I've clearly shown you up in proving that this more than meets guidelines and I have support for it when you were looking forward to deleting one of my articles.  Think what you like of me, I doubt many people here would consider my expansion in good faith today to be as disastrous as you claim. By all means somebody check what I've written in google books and show me to be wrong. The fact is that the theatre and festival go hand in hand.♦  Dr. Blofeld  21:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There really no need for the aggressiveness though: what does it achieve, except to rile others? There are much bigger issues on wiki that could or should inflame the passions and what was created did qualify under WP:STUB as being acceptable. It's a big enough place with enough other problems that need looking into to get too hot under the collar. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of sources. The current building is itself clearly notable, but a theater is much more than a building, as this article amply demonstrates. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - topic appears to meet WP:GNG, although of course the article can and should be improved. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - More than enough RS; it meets WP:GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – per above. Given the sources available on this notable theatre, it wouldn't take much for it to be taken past stub class. --  Cassianto Talk   10:10, 14 November 2013 (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.