Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne City Ballet


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Melbourne City Ballet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A CSD-G11 (advert) was declined. This is an up coming new ballet company with no claims to importance or significance. Only primary sources.Only sn Ghits. Reads like a brochure or an sn entry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - refs easily found on ballet and its productions from different types of media. Not hugely notable yet, but passes the minimum requirements.
 * The only reliable mainstream media source there is the Sydney Morning Herald Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The article has no claims of significance. Also the article looks like a Brochure of the band that taken from their website.JackTracker (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. The article does need cutting and tone adjustment. But multiple examples of substantial coverage of its activities are found in searches (see the GNews search link above, for example), enough anyway to suggest this has become a notable cultural institution in Melbourne. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Melbourne City Ballet is not by any means a notable cultural institution in Melbourne, it is just an independent dance company with an impressive sounding name. It is not especially notable and coverage is not particularly significant or independent, but it might just pass the test.Boneymau (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - borderline notable - hm m.... Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, covered by government-sponsored websites, and in mainstream media , , . Verbcatcher (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - a major cultural institution in a major metro area. The article needs fixes, but is not really that bad. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article needs work but it is notable and not worthy of WP:TNT. --  Dane talk  20:33, 9 December 2016 (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.