Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HQ Theatres


 * 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. There seems to be consensus that coverage does exist for this topic. However, even among those who suggest it should be kept, there also seems to be consensus that it is not the kind of sourcing called for by WP:NCORP. Because there were no alternative claims of notability made beyond this standard, when weighing all participation and considering all comments made (not just the bolded !vote) there is a delete consensus here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

HQ Theatres

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to patently failed WP:NCORP and any Wikipedia notability criteria. I can't find any general news coverage about the company online, despite it being active in the internat age. Also written very much promotionally. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I see quite a bit of national coverage, like this from The Stage.  Check the other articles found here.  Also, the article needs referencing, but I don't think it's overly promotional; the statements made are purely factual, if they can be verified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was anything better than the occasional re-hashed press release in a specialist industry publication, I'd of course agree with you. There aren't any articles that are substantially about HQ, in general non-theatrical news sources, which is why the subject fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 668 Google News hits. Many of them are reviews of shows, or concern a news tidbit about one of the group's theatres at a time. One would have to spend a lot of time assembling all of the information into a full story about the theatre group. But the company operates 13 major provincial theatres in Britain and was, even before leasing its 13th theatre, the 2nd largest operator of provincial theatres in Britain.  It is notable on that basis alone, and that statement has been published in more than one news source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't accept stitching together snippets from multiple sources as meeting the criteria for notability. If the company was notable, somebody would have written about it and a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability would exist without resorting to assembling from multiple sources.  HighKing++ 14:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * delete. The coverage I see seems WP:ROUTINE/business-as-usual. I don't see what makes this company pass WP:NORG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep: In my view, detailed stories/interviews in a wide range of UK papers including The Basildon Echo, The Belfast News, The Crewe Chronicle,The Hastings & St Leonards Observer, The Leicester Mercury, Scarborough News, The Southport Visiter (how nice to see they still keep their bizarre traditional spelling), The Surrey Advertiser and TheSwindon Advertiser clearly establish this theatre group as notable. (All and many more can be seen via Newbank ). I am sure we ought to keep the article.  Tim riley  talk   07:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rehashed company announcements and interviews with people connected to the company don't establish notability.  HighKing++ 14:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article or mentioned meet the criteria since most are based on company announcements and/or interviews with company executives and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:04, 11 September 2020 (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.