Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labia 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Labia Theatre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Edit: See comment below

The subject of this article is not noteworthy under WP:GNG. Almost no coverage whatsoever has been given to the theatre, let alone in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see also: WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I originally proposed this article for deletion, but the PROD was removed on its last day, as one editor contested the subject was "of historical interest" without any further explanation.

Not only is the 'History' section of this article entirely uncited, but the only source that even attests to some of the information in that section is published by the theatre itself. As an aside, the three sources currently referenced in the entire article are Google Maps, a crowdfunding page for the theatre, and a promotional video hosted on Vimeo about the crowdfunding effort. Moreover, the article reads like a promotional piece, with the most egregious example of this being: "For the past 37 years, it has been operating as a cinema on the alternative circuit appealing mainly to the more discerning viewer who enjoys its quality product and the charm of its old-world ambience." I should note that this line is plagiarized almost word-for-word from the theatre's website (see the 'History' tab) and that this is not the only instance of word-for-word plagiarism in the article. The self-promotion is toned down from what it was a few years ago, but it still functions as an advertisement with effectively no encyclopedic merit.

To reiterate, the subject is not notable per WP:GNG, portions of the article constitute blatant plagiarism, and most of the article is completely unreferenced. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator as a weak keep due to one additional source. Guess it's time to go help rebuild the article almost entirely from scratch then. TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as the building does seem to be of historic interest and I will try and find out if it is the subject of a preservation order as buildings that are so protected are usually kept on Wikipedia. Regarding the tone of the article that can be re-edited, and as for deprodding on the last day that is to allow for other's input to the article before the time is up and it can be assessed in its final state, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You continue to use this nebulous term "historic interest" – which I would contend is a weasel word – to justify keeping the article, as though it carries any weight for Wikipedia's notability guidelines; WP:NBUILD, while it mentions historic importance, basically defers to WP:GNG, which stipulates that the subject should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A good-faith search for said coverage has shown me that the theatre falls completely short of these guidelines. Moreover, I highly doubt that it's a protected historical site. I could find no evidence whatsoever that it is, and it would seem incredibly strange that the theatre wouldn't have this achievement listed on their site if they were. If, shockingly, they are, of course, that isn't where the goalpost is; the goalpost is significant, reliable, third-party coverage. As far as the plagiarism and the advertising go, that can be fixed and doesn't necessarily reflect on the subject's notability (see: WP:ARTN), but it shows the state of disrepair that the article is in and has been in for years. I'm legitimately confused by what you mean by "in its final state", as though there's ongoing work on this article. That PROD was instated over half a year ago, yet no substantial changes have been made to the article. TheTechnician27 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I think that all of the content added in is part of the problem.  Not only was it filched wholesale, from the not-independent sources given in the edit summary (e.g. TripAdvisor), but it contained completely unencyclopaedic content (e.g. direct exhortations to the reader to buy things, and "Hey, they pay the rent.") because of that.  Normally, on the ground of copyright I would zap the current derived work and start from, which was a decent stub.  But looking around I am unable to find any independent sources to corroborate any of this.  Moreover,  was purportedly directly from a source, without any external confirmation at all and with some unsupported negative biographical material.  The only source of any information on this subject is the subject, which could claim anything that it liked, and has done both directly in Wikipedia and in its own self-publicity.  I cannot even independently confirm the contents of the stub with good sources.  No reliable and independent source that I can find has ever documented, fact checked, and published any of this claimed history.  Uncle G (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So I've been doing some digging, and I've managed to dig up a few sources with the theatre as their subject. What I'm presenting, however, is all I've been able to find, and calling it "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources" is grasping; the historical information is ostensibly derived solely from the owner or others affiliated with the theatre, most of the articles barely touch on the history, and many of them feel like essays rather than news stories. The first and most significant is this article published by the Daily Maverick that got republished in The Guardian through their Africa network; even this source barely touches on any historical significance, and a direct quote from the theatre's owner in the article says: "It's quite a sketchy history. I'm not quite sure whether everything is factual." The second comes from the Mail & Guardian, the author of which has never written another article for them and whose "own history with the Labia began in 1981"; more than anything, the article unsurprisingly reads like a personal essay. From the eNCA, this article is a short birthday celebration, and all of the (limited) historical information comes directly from the owner himself. Finally, this article from the Mail & Guardian doesn't touch on historical relevance whatsoever, and instead talks about the fundraising effort. I was hoping to be swayed, but it's still a strong 'delete' from me. This might serve better as its own section in some other article, but it's ridiculous for it to have its own separate article. TheTechnician27 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Disagree as there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG such as

this,

this,

this one,

,

this,

this one, some of them you have dismissed but the coverage is substantial and in reliable sources and the last one I mentioned is controversial and certainly independent. I'm changing to a full keep Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Atlantic306, including for this substantial news article coverage (the second "this" in A's list above). And it is apparently the oldest independent theater in South Africa. And the sources more than suffice, are more than what routinely meets requirements for historic theaters in the U.S.; we should not set a much higher barrier for S.A. --Doncram (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2019 (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.