Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imago Theatre (Portland, Oregon)

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. Keeping out of the rationale that this article will be improved with more sourcing. If anyone disagrees after the article is improved, please consider renominating. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Theatre (Portland, Oregon)

[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)

Non-notable theater company. The only notice this company appears to have received outside of run-of-the-mill announcements of its shows was the fact that it had to sell its building, which apparently has some local historical notability of its own. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @WikiDan61: I wish you had raised this concern on the article's talk page before going straight to AfD. I see where you're coming from, but if I search "Imago Theatre"+Portland via Google News, there are 875 returns. Yes, some of these are just calendar announcements or other minor blurbs, but there are also quite a few program reviews. I believe these could be collected to form a decent overview of the theatre company's program history. And these are not blogs -- these are reputable sources like Willamette Week, OPB News, Portland Mercury, and The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. These articles do not add up to nothing. And yes, apart from programs and reviews, there are other events such as the possible selling of its historic building, as reported by multiple reliable sources, as well as mentions in guide books of Portland, etc. In my opinion, this is an easy keep. Much more work is needed to expand the article, but the stub is appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article may have been put on WikiDan61's radar because of recent problematic edits by a new editor, possibly one with a COI. I've tried getting this editor to discuss possible improvements on the talk page. But deletion is not the right course of action here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems well sourced, and per Another Believer's comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so I'm an eventualist. That said have we already acknowledged it was newsworthy that the occupied a historical building and had to sell it. This guy who writes for the Portland Mercury talks of international attention, notes 40 year run and says some of the most interesting experiments he's seen in Portland. The Willamette Week was excited see their production in 2019. Oregon Artswatch found one of their shows a hit. Doesn't seem like it would be hard to put a decent article together on a theater company that had a 40 year run in a historic building with some local fave hits and some avante gard work of note. MrBill3 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: Nominator has acknowledged notability here. Can we close this discussion and remove the tag? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Another Believer: I acknowledged that "the discussion has asserted that the organization is, in fact, notable." That is not the same as acknowledging that notability myself. I maintain that my nomination was made in good faith; the discussion should be allowed to run its full length. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, You're right, my apologies. I will strike my comment above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I always believed your nomination was made in good faith. I was just trying to have the tag removed sooner than later when I misinterpreted your comment and thought you were acknowledging notability. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 18 January 2020 (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.