Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The British Theatre Guide

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. Unfortunately even the third relist was not able to draw enough opinions so that consensus could be established. The arguments evolve around sourcing: currently the article has no RS, but potentially it could be sourced. Let us give it a rest for a while and renominate in a year if it has not been improved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The British Theatre Guide

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

I'm slightly sceptical this online theatre website is worthy of a Wikipedia write-up. Clearly it is widely quoted by people in the theatre industry who love to publicise any praise. It has an editorial team, though seems to have no headquarters or main contact info. Maybe it could be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia (it clearly is at the moment), but seems to fail WP:NWEB. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the above, the article is not properly sourced. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is widely quoted that would seem to make it notable. In the world of the internet having a headquarters is hardly a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia. If we can use it as source then it can also have an article. As to the sourcing that is what we have the Template:Refimprove for. If we start removing articles that aren't properly sourced we can get back under 2 million articles pretty quickly. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an aim on the number of articles? If so I can write a few today but I prefer to help better our articles. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 20:51, 2 September 2014 (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.