Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splinters Theatre of Spectacle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, with massive doses of fix it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splinters Theatre of Spectacle

Splinters Theatre of Spectacle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable performance group. Speedy deleted following a PROD, but the PROD was appealed at WP:DRV, so it was recreated. No sources as to what makes this notable, and no claims of notability, just of longevity. Corvus cornixtalk 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. —BradV 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn speedy. Apparently that is an unauthorized Wikipedia mirror. —BradV 00:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable -Drdisque (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this poorly-written and poorly-formatted article which has many quality problems. It does seem notable, in that the Minister for Urban Services and Minister for the Arts said this about it and its founder at the Legislative Assembly for the ACT. That and the fact that several famous people list their various positions held in Splinters prominently in their resumes (Eg. Gavin Findlay, Lawrence Alloway, Rebecca Rutter). When searching for sources, one must also look for variant names, such as "Splinters Theatrical Company", "Splinters Theatre Company" or just "Splinters"; this is if course difficult, as splinters is a common term, but adding "Canberra" seems to narrow it down. Although this one is just a casual mention, it seems to refer to it as something everyone would inherantly know, which suggests at least local notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete since the content is dire and the formatting hopeless. There's nothing obvious here which would survive the necessary rewrite, and no sources provided from which to do it. Unless rewritten before the end of the AfD, it needs gone. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since when has the formatting of an article had anything to do with whether it should be kept or deleted? Haven't you noticed that there is an "edit this page" tab that can be used to fix that? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable for the number of performances and participants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.184.34 (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article needs clean up tags but there seems to be plenty of third party sources supporting the notabilty of this topic.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2008 (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.