Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Theatre Wichita


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Music Theatre Wichita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous WP:PROD that was restored, however WP:G11 still exists, article is very promotional, not neutral POV, barely notable and distinctly meets G11 requirements. SanAnMan (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that whoever requested the restore didn't even sign the request, so we have no idea where it came from. Just a note. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and draft & userfy instead as this is questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SwisterTwister I would normally support userfy, however, the original author (User:Spellingbeefan) no longer has an active account, and in fact, only contributed to this one article. As for "questionably solidly notable", the only articles searched are either local newspaper/TV reviews of their shows and some notes from BroadwayWorld.com, a questionable site at best. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. I agree that the nominated version of this article has a heavily promotional tone.  But I think this can be addressed through editing, and the company is a long-lived cultural entity of some real significance in Kansas, with lots of coverage apparent in the usual Google and HighBeam searches.  I've taken a first crack at reducing the promotional language; further improvements and more sources are certainly needed, including perhaps removing the long list of historical productions, which is probably excessive for this kind of article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Followed your lead, agree that the list of productions wasn't needed. Cleaned a few other things and tagged some areas that still need cites/sources. I normally don't like using the baseball bat method of cleaning an article, but I think it this case it worked. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to have removed POV issues and seems nicely sourced. Appears to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that article now meets criteria. Request to withdraw the nomination and Keep. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:40, 15 February 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.