Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shortis and Simpson


 * 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Shortis and Simpson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a pair of theatrical collaborators, written just a little bit too much like an advertisement for their work rather than an encyclopedia article about them, and resting too heavily on self-published primary sources and not enough on reliable source coverage. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep poor style, tone and low NPoV certainly: nevertheless the subject is Notable. See 1, 2, 3, 4 and |-shortis-and-simpson.html 5. I don't have time to work on this article and tackle all of its problems; the topic is sufficiently mentioned in independent reliable sources to be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Shaidar cuebiyar has provided good links. They are from Canberra but get national coverage.Alec Station (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that the tone needs to be more neutral, but don't think it reads like an advertisement. Also there are many sources (National Library, ABC, Georgia Conservatory, Fairfax Press, Victorian Government) that are reliable. Does need more work to include back links with existing Australian artists on Wikipedia who have collaborated with them. Andrewpinhall (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2015 (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.