Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Dog Theatre: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Winstonwolfe (talk | contribs) |
Winstonwolfe (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*'''Keep''', meets [[WP:N]]. The Press website has 3 fairly trivial mentions, but the ChCh Libraries website Papers Index / Subject search says "'Top Dog Theatre Company.' occurs 41 times"[http://librarydata.christchurch.org.nz/web2/tramp2.exe/log_in], and the Highbeam article linked in the article looks to be in-depth. [[User:XLerate|XLerate]] ([[User talk:XLerate|talk]]) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', meets [[WP:N]]. The Press website has 3 fairly trivial mentions, but the ChCh Libraries website Papers Index / Subject search says "'Top Dog Theatre Company.' occurs 41 times"[http://librarydata.christchurch.org.nz/web2/tramp2.exe/log_in], and the Highbeam article linked in the article looks to be in-depth. [[User:XLerate|XLerate]] ([[User talk:XLerate|talk]]) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', I agree it meets [[WP:N]], and I don't see why amatuer theatre companies are inherently non noteable. But I also agree it needs a rewrite to sound less like a promo. |
*'''Keep''', I agree it meets [[WP:N]], and I don't see why amatuer theatre companies are inherently non noteable. But I also agree it needs a rewrite to sound less like a promo.[[User:Winstonwolfe|Winstonwolfe]] ([[User talk:Winstonwolfe|talk]]) 03:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 03:22, 31 January 2010
- Top Dog Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. looks a bit like an advert. hardly any third party coverage. [1]. we don't have articles on every local amateur theatre company. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems no more notable than any number of amateur theatre groups, none of which are sufficiently notable for a wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:N. The Press website has 3 fairly trivial mentions, but the ChCh Libraries website Papers Index / Subject search says "'Top Dog Theatre Company.' occurs 41 times"[2], and the Highbeam article linked in the article looks to be in-depth. XLerate (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree it meets WP:N, and I don't see why amatuer theatre companies are inherently non noteable. But I also agree it needs a rewrite to sound less like a promo.Winstonwolfe (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)