Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhoda McGaw 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per discussion. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoda McGaw Theatre[edit]

[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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found the following two articles, which discuss the theatre—as opposed to performances in it—relatively in-depth. No idea where else they might be indexed, but I provided doc IDs for those with access to ProQuest. Most of the other coverage seems routine, and I'm not quite sure how to treat a trade journal for the purposes of WP:NBUILD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Caswell, Richard (15 May 1975). "Woking's new leisure complex". 4909: 17. ProQuest document ID 1040281556. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Hepple, Peter (26 December 1991). "The wonder of Woking". 5776: 19. ProQuest document ID 962509926. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about al theatre, so the correct criteria are GNG and the not-very-helpful WP:NBUILD, not WP:ORGCRIT. It is clearly a professional venue, equivalent to an off-Broadway theatre in New York City. The article is not currently well-referenced, and it quotes too extensively from the theatre's website, but this is a significant venue and is certainly notable. It seems clear to me that this article simply needs a little attention from someone capable of going through the Google News and Google books sources and adding in-line cites to the statements made. Maybe someone from the Theatre project would be willing to invest the time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important regional theatre. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per AleatoryPonderings and other sources found. Please note; that a week rationale for keep may grant a reprisal for now, but a relisting, because the Nom was valid, could result in a different outcome. It is policy that information be verified and that primary sources do not advance notability. When notability is contested it become the burden of those wishing inclusion to provide proof according to our policies and guidelines. "Keep" gestures (wannabe !votes) will not usually suffice in many debates. If a venue is important it will likely have achieved notice and thereby sources. "All of the above" can be seen as "keep because everyone else likes it", and sourcing through the "external links section (certainly "not currently well-referenced" -- or at all) is rarely indicative of notability. I found some sources to validate some of the unsourced content and will see if there are more later. The Ambassador Theatre Group, which includes the New Victoria Theatre , the Rhoda McGaw Theatre and the six-screen cinema in Woking. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nomination withdrawn. Thank you all for your research. // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 17 August 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.