Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeae Theatre Company


 * 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   Speedy Keep WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SNOW are applicable  I 'mperator 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Graeae Theatre Company

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced article on non-notable subject Azviz (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong and speedy keep -- Article had some references (one of which the nominator removed), I've added one that's clearly independent and reliable and so forth, and it's clearly notable as the first theatre company for disabled actors, with press coverage to that end. I also suspect the AFD was created in bad faith by this extremely new editor, who seems to be continuing the work of another editor with limited edits who was warned about such violations in the past (that account also appeared to be a sock of someone else, as it was created and then abandoned after the warning). DreamGuy (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as I, too, have reason to believe that this is one of several bad-faith AFD nominations made by this editor. MuZemike 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of the "Keep" arguments above address my concern that this company is not notable. There is nothing "bad faith" about this nomination, and these two editors who make such a false claim have another agenda that they should fess up to. DreamGuy and MuZemike need to be reminded that "assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" (see Assume good faith). DreamGuy's argument that it is "the first theatre company for disabled actors" is not true, and further is not even mentioned in the article; and the unreferenced bold statement claiming "the company has since become the most well-respected group of its kind" is balderdash hype that should be either referenced or removed. Azviz (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith on an account that has been created in bad faith. MuZemike 06:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith does not mean "ignore clear bad faith behavior" -- And my claims are both accurate and supported by the references provided. As an FYI, I only made the article after someone mentioned it in the Graeae article and I looked into it at the time and saw it was very legit, so made a stub for it to explain what it was instead of taking up space in an unrelated article. If you'd even attempted a good faith effort to look into it you would have very esaily discovered the same thing. Instead you are targeting specific articles created by editors who crossed the path of earlier newly-created account used to harass people through baseless deletion attempts of their work. Don't expect people to be idiots when you pull crap like that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article could do with some work; in particular, it needs bringing up to date, but there's clearly a valid subject here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Needs a a small cleanup, but clearly notable, especially considering the Evening Standard Award Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep--there's nothing here that suggests this article should have been AfD'ed in the first place. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Concerns about the nominator aside, the subject has sufficient 3rd-party references to satisfy notability. -- BlueSquadron Raven  23:19, 3 April 2009 (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.