Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cahul Musical-Drama Theatre

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cahul Musical-Drama Theatre[edit]

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

I tried merging, but as the article creator's response was to accuse me of vandalism — Rgvis, as someone who's been editing Wikipedia since spring 2009, you really should recognize that as part of the normal editing process by now — I now turn to the blunter instrument of AfD, although, should the consensus be to merge, I would not be displeased.

Anyway: if all we have to say about this organization is that it exists, that it is located in a particular city and was founded at a particular date, then I'm afraid that simply isn't enough for a standalone article, which does in fact require, per WP:GNG, "significant coverage". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cahul Musical-Drama Theatre article was edited from the beginning as a stub, in order to provide the opportunity for continuous improvement, during the time. The article is about a cultural state institution, the only public theatre in that part of the country (South Moldova), and it contains verifiable information. There are many, many other examples of this kind of articles (many of them poorer than this contested article), on Wikipedia: Andon Zako Çajupi Theatre, Teatro Urbano Girardi, Hrachya Ghaplanyan Drama Theatre, Stanislavski Russian Theatre of Yerevan, AffrontTheater, Burghofspiele Voitsberg, Der Grüne Wagen, Silesian Theatre, Ioan Slavici Classical Theatre, The English Theatre of Bruges, Opéra Royal de Wallonie, Kumamoto Prefectural Theater, Nissay Theatre, Naturtheater Hayingen, Theater Ulm, Butler House (St. Louis, Missouri), Beverly Theater, Aladdin Theater (Portland, Oregon), Théâtre de l'Archevêché, Théâtre de verdure de Nice, Millennium Theatre (Prague), Musical Theatre Karlín, just to name a few. I consider that, in this case, through his action, Biruitorul did not comply with the requirements of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

WP:WAX is not a valid argument, although I would agree many of these articles should be considered for deletion/merger.
The fact that this is the only public theatre in southern Moldova is significant if reliable sources have commented on this fact. Otherwise, see WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.
There's a difference between a stub that can potentially be expanded and one that can't. For instance, yesterday I started Daniel Danielopolu. It's obviously a stub, but can as obviously be expanded from here and here and, I'm sure, elsewhere.
On the other hand, rhetoric aside, you've shown no indication that this article can even potentially meet GNG — "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Until that happens, we should delete or at least merge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your point of view regarding this article (I prefer facts, not personal interpretations about how the article would evoluate in a more or less near future), but I respect the fact that, finally, you have started acting in a more, let's say, Wikipedian Way. Still, nothing can justify your first actions regarding this article (that's why I had made a suggestion on reviewing the Wikipedia:Five pillars). Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 29 October 2014 (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.