Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windmill 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill Theatre Company[edit]

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

The subject is a (reasonably large) amateur theatre company in outer Melbourne. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:CLUB. The only coverage appears to be in local suburban media. Note: the subject should not be confused with the notable Windmill Theatre (also called Windmill Theatre Company and formerly Windmill Performing Arts) which is a professional theatre company for young audiences based in Adelaide. Boneymau (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not to be confused with Windmill Performing Arts -- Paul foord (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a local, non professional theatre company. The article is mostly self-cited, and I'm not able to locate sufficient independent coverage. This content belongs on the org's Facebook page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2017 (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.