Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbeville Opera House

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. Sr 13 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeville Opera House[edit]

This article has problems with notability and possible conflict of interest. It may need cleanup or deletion - I'm not sure. Yechiel Man 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Edtropolis 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - the opera house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The city's web site talks about the history of the opera house, so that should provide sufficient context on the opera house's history. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far I think we have consistently kept buildings with individual listings on the National Register--certainly if they are significant public buildings like this one. DGG 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NRHP listings are vetted by professionals at the state and federal levels for their architectural, cultural, or historical significance. I don't think the tourism award is that significant but in a context of downtown revitalization might be (there seem to be some news sources on that behind paywalls). --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, this in itself makes it notable. The article needs a cleanup, that's all.Einbierbitte 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places should merit keeping this article. Particularly since it was added to the Register in 1970, making it one of the older listings (the program started in the late '60s). -Ebyabe 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The NRHP listing is enough to keep this article. IvoShandor 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up The particular facet about the tourism award may or may not be made notable with context. But certainly the historic values of the site, as established through its NRHP listing, make it of encyclopedic value. (Conflict of interest disclosure: My folks used to perform there several years ago.) -Ipoellet 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a bit of clean up, the awards I left in because they are likely notable in context of the building's overall cultural significance. I cut a few things that I thought could reasonably be construed as POV or as trivial information. I removed the NPOV tag and autobiography tags (not sure why that was there). IvoShandor 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has problems but does have notability. Vectorsap 23:48, 20 June 2007 (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.