Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.I.S.T


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

G.I.S.T
Looks like a non-notable acting troupe. Four of the nine search results given by +Wordsley +theatre +"G.I.S.T." appear relevant. Using fewer search terms yields all irrelevant results, as the periods and capitalization are ignored. I say delete. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This group forms part of a community of performing arts groups in the Wordsley area of the West Midlands. This area has a thriving artistic community as part of its defining features. This group is locally important and worthy of inclusion in the context of the character of its local area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackjo (talk • contribs)


 * Delete as a bunch of non-notable luvvies. There are relevant Google hits that point to a series of local newspaper articles, but the facts are that this group is just three strong and is the remnant of another amdracsoc. Unless there are compelling reasons wrt wiki standards, they should be consigned to the prop store. Eddie.willers 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless anyone can supply evidence of true encyclopedic relevance. -R. fiend 06:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: the above comments:I think the individuals above are expressing non-rational reasons with a fair degree of emotional opinion for deleting this page. I hardly think "a bunch of non-notable luvvies" is a considered and reasonable reason to remove an item from the site. Including jokes within the comment (e.g. "consigned to the prop store") shows a lack of reasonable and considered argument. If these comments were more considered I would be more inclined to take on board their criticisms and possibly remove the text myself. But in light of the nature of the comments posted, I am both offended by their ignorance and blatant predjudice and also rather dismayed that this supposedly "open" resource is seemingly rather less open than perhaps it would seem. Incidentally, I also contributed an article about David Tristram, the playwright. Do you want to delete that too?? --Hackjo 09:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per R. fiend. Not a notable group. Stifle 00:34, 12 December 2005 (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.