Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolis Performing Arts Centre


 * 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✈  05:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Metropolis Performing Arts Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable group lacking non-trivial support. References are only listings. red dogsix (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep and improve. In light of the below comment by Arxiloxos, keep and improve seems, quite clearly, to be the best option. Amccann421 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. There are literally thousands of references about this theatre complex at HighBeam, as well as multiple sources in the usual Google searches.  From what I have read so far, it appears to me that the current article misses the thrust of why the subject is notable: the sources say that it is an important theatre venue in Arlington Heights, which began in 2000 as a for-profit entity but converted to non-profit in 2002 and has become an important, financially challenged, publicly subsidized cultural outlet for Arlington Heights and the surrounding area of metro Chicago.  See, for example these Chicago Tribune articles   and this from the Daily Herald .  I've also found a discussion of the architectural and urban planning significance of the complex in a U of Chicago Press book .  --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even if it didn't meet WP:GNG (which I believe it does), based on the search results of alone, further searching shows that it definitely passes WP:BASIC. My concern is that the coverage may all be WP:ROUTINE, but there is so much of it, I feel it passes. WP:CORPDEPTH might have been a concern, since all the coverage is local, but the regional coverage is extensive in such notable papers in Chicago as the Tribune, Herald, and Sun-Times, as well as getting brief mentions in national publications such as American Theatre.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 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.