Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Job Productions

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Job Productions[edit]

A non-notable incorporated association formed by an actor without an article. Was going to speedy delete this one but thought I'd bring it here for discussion in case notability exists. Longhair\^talk 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that this entry should be deleted. If organisations such as 'Magnormos'and 'Melbourne Workers Theatre' are allowed to stay then so should this entry for a new organisation that has already begun making waves in the Melbourne Arts Scene and is expected in Sydney at the end of the year to co-produce with Griffin Theatre company.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/focusing-on-the-dazed-and-confused/2009/01/11/1231608516816.html http://onstagemelbourne.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-this-is-our-youth-inside-job.html http://theatrepeople.com.au/review_articles/2009/january/review_insidejob_thisisouryouth.htm http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/crazy-days-of-reaganomics/2009/01/19/1232213538242.html

Just to show a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki Shaw (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Longhair\^talk 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Kiki Shaw. Theatre company with notable productions => notable theatre company. JulesH (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete but persuadable: While the organization does appear to have made at least one potentially notable production, the coverage is primarily for the production itself, and not of the organization. The production might be notable based on the coverage, but I'm just not convinced the organization is notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Poorly written, but most of the wikilinks existed before this article was created, indicating that the production company was able to draw notable people. Author's only contributions, however, are directly related to this article (not necessarily this specific article), which indicates to me self promotion. Also, article was never tagged except for deletion.Vulture19 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (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.