Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seagull (theatre)


 * 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) Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Seagull (theatre)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I object to the proposed speedy deletion of The Seagull (theatre), so have altered to AfD as it seems a reasonable article apart from lack of references and categories; both fixable. So I do not agree with deletion, but have put it up for discussion. I notice that there have been a lot of edits to the article!! Hugo999 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS: the log entry seems to be wrong Hugo999 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. An earlier version of the article contained a number of additional sources, subsequently deleted, that establish the notability of this theatre in its community and Google has more sources such as .--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above - looks like edits which started to remove sources weren't caught in January, leading to all sorts of issues. I'm certain sources can be found to show notability, certainly from regional media if nothing else. I'll try and have a go this afternoon - I'd say a dial back to 1009 might be a good starting point. I'll also add it to my watchlist... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This artical could be deleted but it can be improved. So i will do somethings to improve it. As can be done according to Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Please do not change my improvements to this artical as it can help prevent it from bing deleted. Darkcover21 (talk) 2:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CSD Artical Being Improved
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep . Personally, I think that any theatre that regularly receives fully professional productions should be automatically notable. But beside from that, even if you disregard the coverage associated with AbI Titmuss, there's now more than enough sources to qualify. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, forget that, Speedy Keep. Given that the CSD tag was placed by Darkcover, who doesn't actually seem to be in favour in deletion, and the AfD was only created to discuss the deletion without the proposer being in favour, and reasonable steps have been taken to address notability, advertising and copyright, I don't think there is actually any case for deletion at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely notable, the article could do with cleanup, is certainly about a notable subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2011 (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.