Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria (theatre company)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (theatre company)[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)

Is this a notable company? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence "sub-stub" about a Belgian theatre company that merely exists the existence of the subject. Sourced solely to the website of the subject. The article was created in 2007, the so-called "dark ages of Wikipedia", when many stubs like this one was born. The company doesn't have an article on nlwiki either, and the name makes it difficult to search. In my opinion, this company is not notable, but if reliable sources are presented, I happily change my mind. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The website is actually for a design company, not a theatre company, and I was unable to find any sourcing for a theatre company by that name. My lack of skill in tracking down Belgian sources means that I am willing to reconsider if someone finds some sourcing that I was unable to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not explain why this subject is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This unreferenced single-sentence stub provides very little to assist searching; speculatively, it may now be known as CAMPO victoria. Anyway, the coverage which might confirm this and demonstrate notability. is lacking. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough news support to pass WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (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.