Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margolis Brown Adaptors 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Yes, I realize there were delete votes, but they were for a prior revision, and the article has been thoroughly rewritten since. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Margolis Brown Adaptors Company

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable corporation, reads as promotion. Seems to have been speedied before. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In fact it was speedied three times, as (in order) G11, G12 and A7. I recommend salting. Downgrade to weak-delete, some notability cracking through. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying not to sound promotional with this stuff....i want to build a clear page that will illucidate the lineage left behind by the great theatre master etienne decroux.......obviously all of the material that i have gathered that is relevant to put on the page is from the typical laundry list of accomplishments that artists give to news paper reporters....it wouldn't do to try to describe a theatre show that is reviewed in those articles, or the training summary in the Allworth Press book...so i thought it best to use "general information" about the Adaptors Co. Zena0727 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Salt If it were only recreated twice /w the creations being spread out I would'nt say so, But THREE TIMES!?! on the SAME DAY?!?! Especially since wikipedia is not an advertising service. James Luftan 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.....i've realized that i should have used the sandbox to see how this stuff would look as a wiki page......not actually submitting it...yes, three times, to see how it would look and, "oh gee.....it got deleted again!???!  what the heck???  well,  i guess i'll change some stuff around and try it again." i'm trying to get it right this time....... Zena0727 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps compare/contrast this article with another of similar content...say, this one: Furious Theatre Company...to help illustrate its failings? BTW, there's more than one person working on perfecting this page, which should help explain the frequency of updates. Zena0727 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

hi, erik, thanks for the reference to Furious Theatre....thats a good point. Zena0727 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt thoroughly. Advertising, and meets at least two of the three speedy criteria it's been deleted under. Take your pick. By the way, could one person use the account so we don't get a split-personality thing going on? Thanks. Hersfold (talk/work) 03:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertising is defined by Wiki as: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well."- i imagine that there is "innapropriate content" on this page that qualifies it for deletion....could someone please cite an example for me in my article so that i can make some choices about editing? Zena0727 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

okay, i've made some edits in an effort to make the article look less like an advertisement. this included removing the external link to the margolis brown company website as well as removing information related to the touring history of their ensemble......any feedback would be much appreciated!! Zena0727 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still fails WP:RS. Add some sources to verify it and I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, I've cited three newspaper articles and a book published by Allworth press as sources...is this sufficient??
 * That's a little better, but are those sources directly about Margolis Brown Company or do they just mention it briefly? Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The three newspaper articles are DIRECTLY about Margolis Brown Co.... they are reviews of their theatrical productions that include interviews with the artists, chronology of their training and past artistic experience as well as mention of their conceptual approach to creation. The "Movement for Actor's" Book is an academic text....Kari Margolis authored the chapter on "Schools of Thought"  in physical theatre...specifically dealing with the theatre ensemble's training methods. a good read. your thoughts? Zena0727 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith in you that these sources truly are valid, but I'll wait and see what others think. I can't withdraw since others have voted delete, however, and I'm still not fully convinced of the notability. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you, i will work to give notability by putting this article into context with others of a similar nature through citations, etc. is there a specific period of time that this debate will continue for before a decision for deletion/validity is made? Zena0727 04:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seven days is the default length. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, i'll plan on using that time to get something accomplished that would help. i'll search out some other verifiable sources...adding citations to articles of a similar nature....etc. do you have any suggestions? i realize the article looks pretty rough and bare naked now....but i suppose that information that is verifiable and as you say "notable" is better than content that looks promotional or "random." i am going to go to bed now- thanks for your input and i look forward to any other suggestions you may have. Zena0727 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you have anything else please move it to my talk page so this discussion doesn't get clogged up. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but needs rewrite. Internationally-touring performance art group really says it all. Press-releasy article still asserts notability so an A7 deletion was out of bounds. (G11 is standard for PR writing that appears to come from someplace else, though.) Sourceable through reviews in the MSP City Paper, Philly Inquirer, Washington Post (a full profile and history), and more (mainly Twin Cities during the time they were based there). Seems to be reasonably notable as an arts group, too bad they don't know how to write a Wikipedia article that doesn't get speedied. --Dhartung | Talk 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is looking much better now. It still needs a lot of work, but by now I'm pretty much convinced that the Adaptors Company is notable. I'm closing this as a withdrawn nomination -- yes, I realize other people voted delete, but those "delete" votes were for a prior version of the article. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:11, 1 August 2007 (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.