Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweed theaterworks


 * 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) SST flyer 05:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tweed theaterworks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG. Three references are to their website; the fourth is a review of Lypsinka which barely mentions tweed. ubiquity (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, probably. The criterion for notability is not (to state the basics) how well cited the article is, but whether it could be well cited from the existing literature. The New York Times Theater Reviews 1997-1998 lists 5 Tweed Theaterworks productions; the 1999-2000 issue lists one of the same productions, Lypsinka! As you'd expect the company gets many passing mentions for specific productions, as also for people who have worked with it; some of these are reliable sources that can be used to establish specific facts in the article. We should note that many sources from the period may not be online, and recall that "once notable, always notable" - the criterion is not temporary. What we need to show is whether TWEED was notable, once. I've added a couple of refs; here's another review we could use. I might add that a review of a production by a theatre company is ipso facto a review of that company; the mention is all the way through, not just the line at the end where the company is named. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although were still looking for a source directly about the subject, there has been good progress in the 10 days since this article was created. We do need to allow some leeway for young article by a new editor on a subject that predates the internet. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Barely notable, but they pass notability as they are mentioned in multiple reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the city's volunteering website NYCService.org. I wish another source could be added to the history paragraph. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 24 April 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.