Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River City Theatre Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. This was close as the nominator did not favor delete over cleanup, only three editors suggested delete and one thought that cleanup would fix the article. I'm not getting a clear signal, so this one escapes deletion by the skin of its teeth. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. This was close as the nominator did not favor delete over cleanup, only three editors suggested delete and one thought that cleanup would fix the article. I'm not getting a clear signal, so this one escapes deletion by the skin of its teeth. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
River_City_Theatre_Company[edit]
River_City_Theatre_Company This is a vanity page. I see no significance of it being in Wikipedia. The use of the pronoun "I" worries me. This page needs to be deleted or have the bottom removed from it and expanded. Michael180 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Michael180 00:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- have the bottom removed from it and expanded — That's cleanup. This is VFD. You're in the wrong place. Boldly remove the first-person text, make a note on the talk page if you deem it appropriate, and add the cleanup tag of your choice. Uncle G 01:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Delete, not cleanup: This is advertising, and therefore a violation of the deletion policy. Further, the theater is a small rep theater, one like the other and the next in an unending line of regional companies. No indication of notability among regional theaters. Geogre 03:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ad. Wikipedia is not What's On. Unless someone can demonstrate notability or influence beyond the norm of regional rep. theatres, this would not warrant a separate article (although if there was a suitable article - say Recreation in Sacramento, California, then it might warrant one line on there. Average Earthman 11:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until evidence of notability is produced. U$er 06:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else want to comment? Otherwise, I think we have a majority for DELETE, so can a friendly sysop delete the page and it's image. --michael180 20:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Closer's comment. A majority is not consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.