Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk the Plank (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 Keep. If the author had cited sources for the article in the first place then it would not have needed to come to AfD at all. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Walk the Plank (theatre company)

I created this article earlier today and it was at once speedied and shoveled into the incinerator without discussion. So I re-created it and at once AfD'ed it as the only way that I could see to get it discussed properly. Walk the Plank (theatre company) is quite well known in Britain and has existed since 1992 or earlier. OK, so perhaps it is not notable to some because it (as far as I know) has never played in America. This theater company exists and is NOT a hoax. I have no connection with the company, so the page is not ad-spam. It is more notable than many of the hundreds of routine pop music groups and their songs and albums that clutter Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, comparing the page to "clutter" doesn't really impress... but, regardless, can you provide references in the article that would meet WP:N and WP:V? Specifically, although we don't have guidelines for theatre groups, I'd suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) and WP:MUSIC. thanks. bikeable (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- found lotsa stuff on google. "Walk the Plank has the UK's only touring theatre ship, the ‘Fitzcarraldo’, which is moored at Canning Dock in Liverpool" etc. Suggest the editor(s) invest time building a case for credibility in a sandbox page in their user space before creating the page in Main space.--Ling.Nut 17:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A better approach would be to cite sources from the very first edit onwards. This article cites zero sources to demonstrate that what the nominator says is actually true. As this article stands, it is speedily deletable under the "author requests deletion" criterion, since xe xyrself has nominated it for deletion. Nominating one's own articles for deletion isn't the way to demonstrate that the satisfy notability criteria. Writing the articles properly is. Please learn to cite sources. Then you won't get into these difficulties in the first place. Uncle G 12:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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.