Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegan Community Players

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 Delete --Bubba hotep 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegan Community Players

Allegan Community Players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable theatre group. So they're pretty old, hardly a big deal. Just about every theatre group is going to be the oldest in some geographic location. All this really is is a list of people, 99% of them completely non-notable. A couple semi-famous people may have been associated with them over the years, but no one is famous for their association with the group. The bar where Tom Wopat washed dishes when he was in college is not notable from its association with Tom Wopat, and the same goes for this little group. R. fiend 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product). ◄Zahakiel► 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Despite what the "non-notable" nominator says, this theater group is notable to warrant an article. The group is of significant historic note and interest being distiguished as the oldest continuing theater group in the whole state of Michigan. It is of value to researchers and theater buffs alike and the fact that some noted individuals were members of this group is notable in and of itself. Cliff Robertson can hardly be called a "semi-famous" actor, he is an Academy Award winner! And the bizarre example of Tom Wopat washing dishes in a bar is as irrelevent to this vote as is a bartender editing Wikipedia. I would love to see more information added to the article but my keep vote is not dependent on that. It's a keeper. Dwain 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• How about some sources that assert historical importance. Don't confuse notability with importance, if no sources are available then an article fails to meet notability standards. --Daniel J. Leivick 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notability is not inherited. Having once been part of group -- long before having been famous -- doesn't impart any notability to the group. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this Calton is a troll. I am engaged in an argument with this user over another article and he is following me to "get back at me". This proves that this user is incapable of editing Wikipedia intelligently. He lies by the way just to let you all know. Bad troll! Dwain 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Argument" implies an exchange of views, as opposed to, say, a vaguely coherent ranting monologue. So, no, there's no "argument" going on. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Some of our regular articles contain a list of names, but this usually occurs when all or most of the names are notable enough to have their own articles. If this one were ever to be made into a proper encyclopedic article, it would have to lose the list of names. Since there's really nothing here right now except those names and a few links to web sites, I'm voting to delete. EdJohnston 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It does not appear that anyone has bothered to provide notice to the article's creator and any significant contributors. This is considered to civil under WP guidelines, but is seldom honored in practiced. This should be the responsibility of those initiating the AfD. If this not done by tomorrow I will do it myself, if I am able. Edivorce 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It has always puzzled me that it should not be required in all cases. The prod template provides a simple way to do it, and so could they one for afd.

• Weak keep under the assumption ist can be sourced. If it is as notable as claimed, there will surely be reviews. A list of productions would have made more sense than an undifferentiated list of cast members, but that's a editing question. Ifno sources are found quickly, delete.DGG 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Basically an adequately sourced stub and a questionable list. If the list is not appropriate the solution is to edit the article, not to delete the whole thing. Thank you DGG for providing notice. Edivorce 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This embarrassment to Wikipedia doesn't even rise to the level of a stub, and if I wanted a listing of names of people I've never heard of and never will hear of I'd use the local phone directory. WP:LOCAL applies unless someone turns up something other than mere existence. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero secondary sources. —Cryptic 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting to have two Japanese speaking non-Japanese. Maybe there is some sort of "connection" between Calton and Cryptic. Hmmm. A lot to ponder there. Dwain 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dwain, it would be sensible for you to remove the personal attacks against Calton that you posted above. EdJohnston 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. --Calton | Talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The stub is sourced from a little write up on a theater directory website, but it doesn't look like an actual article can be sourced. This AfD has been around for a long time and no one has added anything to establish notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of independent non-trivial sources. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 5 April 2007 (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.