Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre Royal, Southampton


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Improvements and expansion have been made to the article in light of new reliable sources being added. (non-admin closure) Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Theatre Royal, Southampton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article fails WP:GNG. The former theatre was destroyed in 1940, but I can’t seem to find many sources on the subject matter. There is only one reference in the article, which I’m not sure passes as reliable (someone can correct me if this is otherwise). Unless people can find some reliable sources, which I have not been able to, I’m not sure as to whether we can keep the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - as a theatre in existence from 1760-1940, there are likely to be many references in contemporary newspapers, such as the Southampton Herald and Hampshire Telegraph. This article might be better off being draftified or userfied in the short term, allowing it to be worked upon and improved. AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mjroots I understand your point. However, the problem is that I have been looking, but haven’t found anything myself as of yet in contemporary newspapers, books etc that may be relevant. I know AFD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement, but there has to be sources for there to be an improvement. I’ve been looking for sources that are relevant for a short time. If someone could find sources that would be relevant, then that would be great.
 * I’m not against it being draftified in the short term, but we can’t keep articles because there is likely to be sources. If it’s not with us, then we can’t keep it. Fats40boy11 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The above comments are not a criticism of your nomination, which was made in good faith, and is a valid nomination. I know the pain of having an article deleted, so can see both sides. If indicates that they are amenable to the article being moved to draft or user space, it can be done and this discussion closed. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. If it can be improved, then of course it should. I’d be willing to withdraw if improvements can be made, but as you say, I think it would be best to be moved to draft or user space whilst the improvements are being made. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of new sources and expansion. Nomination was very appropriate, as the sources cited previously were not accurate or reliable (although they did provide useful clues about where to look). The following sources provide in-depth coverage that satisfies WP:GNG – Patterson 2006 book published by University of Southampton Press (Volumes 1 & 2), and The Era weekly newspaper article from 1880 (continued here). There are also many newspaper articles available covering the opening of the theatre in 1803, and articles about the fire that burned down the theatre in 1884. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment from Nominator – Withdraw Due to significant improvements made to the page, I would like to withdraw my AFD. I would like to thank everyone who has been engaged in this AFD, and those who have improved the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (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.