Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Domestic Crusaders


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The Domestic Crusaders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is questonable if this play is notable enough. The author is not notable for his own wiki-page; nor is the director. The Plot (With a keen sense of timing...) and the Reviews-section read like a part of an advertisement. The home-page is down. Sourcing is present, but only the New York Times-article can be seen as a "reliable source that is independent of the subject." I do not believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but I can be wrong. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 16:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the provision of sources, a 3rd relisting for additional discussion seems in order
 * Keep. Was easily able to find coverage of this play from Newsweek, McSweeney's, Huffington Post, and other reliable sources. The article deserves a rewrite to be less promotional, but the subject appears to be notable. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per RL0919; those references plus the existing ones are (just) enough for GNG. I've removed a bunch of the promo material. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:08, 27 July 2018 (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.