Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theater intime

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 of the debate was keep. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theater intime

And since it receives no support from Princeton, nor does it make any assertion of notability, it doesn't deserve an article (maybe.....and that's a long maybe, a nod in the princeton article) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-club, no notability asserted. Sandstein 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So tagged, incidentally. Sandstein 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, 80+-year-old independent theater group (which seems to control its own theater, unusual enough for a supposed student club) which happens to be be run by students from a single college. The organization's website makes reasonable claims to notability (notable alumni working in professional theater). This Afd nomination, while the original author was apparently still writing the article, with no effort at research or attempting to contact the author to ask for improvements, is a perfect example of a WP:BITE violation. It ought to be policy that when a new user is in the process of writing an article, busybody editors should allow more than 30 seconds to see if the author is done. Monicasdude 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This AfD is about the article and not about the editors. --Alan Au 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. An inappropriate nomination is fair game for comment, and this is a very inappropriate nomination. The tag was added while the article was being written (which ought to be seen as uncivil, but somehow isn't, by a new editor. Per WP:BITE, appropriate reactions would include:
      

If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put titles in boldface, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself.

Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you *like*.

Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized strictures and structures, which take time to learn.

and keep in mind We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

There's nothing in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, consensus, or whatever that suggests that summarily tagging a new editor's chosen subject as nonnotable and undeserving of Wikipedia's attention, without doing a shred of research, without any signs of bad faith on the new editor's part, and without making any attempt to contact the editor to see whether the objection can be satisfied, is anything but entirely inappropriate behavior. Monicasdude 22:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Monicasdude: While I appreciate your comments, accusing me of WP:BITE ing and being a "busybody" editor is rather uncivil. The article completely fails to meet any notability standards, let alone asserts them. It perfectly fits the criteria for speedy deletion but I put it on AfD instead to gather a consensus. Attacking me is not the way to go. I'd appreciate it for you to refactor your comment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I thought your behavior violated WP:BITE, and said so. That is certainly no less appropriate than your comments here. It is a perverse facet of deletionist behavior that editors feel free to criticize editors whose articles they would like to delete, but feel themselves immune from criticism. Monicasdude 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss the article, that's fine. Otherwise, please use your respective talk pages. --Alan Au 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability in the article itself, and fails Google test with only 228 hits [1]. --Alan Au 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The more correct Google count is over 28,000 [2] if you search for the official name rather than Americanizing the spelling. Monicasdude 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, indeed. I'll change to Weak Delete then; would keep if notability were established (in the article itself). --Alan Au 22:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

--Except, Princeton university is in america, so the american spelling is more accurate. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, the name that it calls itself is more accurate. Whatever gives you the idea that searching for an organization under a name other than its own is a sensible thing to do? Monicasdude 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further, a large number of those hits of the 28000 are from internal Princeton university pages, student resumes, and a significant portion are not actually "Theatre Intime" but rather the french words "theatre intime" in which case refers to intimate theatre, or (as babelfish would tell you) translates to intimate success, but does not relate to the princeton organization. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: article makes no assertion of notability, nn student club. --Hetar 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: A student-run theatre company like this could well be notable because of its age, notable alumni, and local significance in a setting which in itself is notable in national culture, in this case a university which is significant in American culture. See Cambridge Footlights for a British example. I do not think keeping an article like this opens the door for every short-lived theatre club at Nevada State College and every other minor educational institution in the U.S. I agree with Monicasdude that tagging something like this within a minute of creation is not a good practice and not unlikely to scare a serious contributor away. The current article isn't really much more than a placeholder for the link, but I am voting "weak keep" as I think this topic should have been given a fair chance before nomination. If actually deleted, re-creation in a new & improved version should be allowed without some cumbersome DRV debate (I actually don't think a DRV is required if it is a new article on the topic, but I think it should be stressed anyway). u p p l a n d 07:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has potential. SECProto 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I knew I recognized the name; it took a couple days to make the connection. As I thought, this is certainly a notable organization, among its early members were James Stewart, Joshua Logan, and Broadway/film director Bretaigne Windust. In the late 1920's it spun off a short-lived summer stock company, University Players, which already has its own Wikipedia article, because its early troupe included Stewart, Logan, and Henry Fonda. Quite a few other notable members in later years, too. Here's a link with enough details to verify that, I'd say [3]. Nominations like this are bad practice, and the resulting deletions damage the Wikipedia project. We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article. In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Theatre Intime, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the troupe, so I wonder if there's a problem here. Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about comics, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" Monicasdude 03:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Harro5 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• The addition of info to include the fact that Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda were members of the group changes everything, including my vote to keep. Harro5 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep this please it has potential Yuckfoo 06:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is truely some Wikipedia material. bbx 06:54, 10 April 2006 (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.