Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altes Theater (Düsseldorf)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altes Theater (Düsseldorf)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sourcing, either on Wikipedia or Google. De-PRODded by article creator. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether as Altes Theater or Grupello Theater, searches find very little about this building's theatrical role or its fate after the opening of the Stadttheater Düsseldorf in 1875. It does feature in Architektur in Düsseldorf, in the context of the portico which had been added by Adolph von Vagedes. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of material at de:Altes Theater (Düsseldorf), citing three published sources (regrettably not with in-line citations, but for some reason de.wiki rarely does those). Furius (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable architectural piece in the centre of a major German city, a notable theatre for 125 years until replaced by Stadttheater Düsseldorf. I'm sure this can be sourced and improved, at worst merge into history of the Stadttheater.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important theater in Düsseldorf from some time before 1747 until around 1875. The German wiki mentions five sources. Presumably many more cover details of the theater's history. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. well source and documented. Just because sources are not online doesnt mean they dont exist. --hroest 20:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst Check the page history. This is a situation where AfD resulted in improving the article. It was entirely unsourced, and was either a microstub or on the border of being one when I first nominated it. It had been that way for years. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, sounds like a win for Wikipedia then! Many thanks to Dr. Blofeld who translated the article. --hroest 14:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be more sources available on other wikis. There's probably more out there, but there really should be WP:commonsense on how hard that is to find considering it's foreign and old.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An historic place with documented notability and sustained WP:INDEPTH coverage. More than a cursory WP:BEFORE would have shown this, but no fault to the nom. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.