Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre Noir

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Noir[edit]

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

Lack of notability and independent sources, short of the official website. Adrian Dakota (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Info. Contested PROD; contester was notified, removed the PROD notice, and subsequently made changes to the article. I still don't think the article is notable enough. There doesn't seem to be a related page to merge this page into. --Adrian Dakota (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I did some searching and couldn't find any references to this theatre other than their own website, their YouTube channel, and a couple of personal blogs. On the other hand, it seems well-written and has had incremental improvements by diverse authors over 2 years. Can't see any policy reasons to keep it, but I can't see the harm in keeping it. If anyone finds a single reliable third-party source to at least verify the establishment's existence I would change my vote to Keep. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 02:16, 10 August 2012 (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.