Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheaterWeek

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheaterWeek

TheaterWeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Virtually unsourced. My own searching only finds the Playbill article already cited^[1] plus some passing mentions ^[2][3]. Given that they ceased publication almost 30 years ago, unlikely there will be any more coverage. This is not enough to establish WP:N. RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and New York. RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm, Twinkle seems to have made a hash of the citations. If anybody knows a good way to fix that, please do so. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear that {{subst:!}} apparently wasn't working as intended. It might not work in other templates at all (thereby causing even the would-be host template to not transclude at all). I've fixed the refs to manually do what {{subst:!}} is supposed to do, which is implement the "|" character, and out of an abdudnace of caution apologize for technically editing others' comments (though I think this falls under the allowance for fixing formatting errors). (I have no opinion on the article at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep You get several mentions of it in period newspapers [1], [2], [3] and some book discussions [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b, would you kindly add your sources to the article? I've added a few others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least a couple of sources with substantial coverage. Obviously, article needs some TLC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ssilvers could you go into more detail about which sources other than Playbill have "significant coverage"? RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites to Variety and Backstage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd argue that it's a weak !keep, with the Playbill and the literal hundreds of mentions in newspapers from the period. It was a rather important thing (judging by the number of mentions) and I'd hate to be too hung up on the rules here (we need TWO sources!) to delete it. This is a little more clear cut then the one-liners for sports players we get, that are only sourced to databases. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's a mention from a DC theater-themed digital newspaper, mentioning how the rather notable columnist used to write for the Week [5]. This magazine describes how an and in Week was used early in the AIDS crisis to promote a rather controversial play about the issue, spread over about 5 or 6 paragraphs [6]. I'd argue that's also an important piece of history, at time when the gay community was shunned for being HIV positive, showing how important the magazine was. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They also attracted controversy when they "blasted" a respected NYC theater critic: [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add that? BTW, is this worth citing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It helps. If the article is kept I can possibly update it (no point doing so if it's going to get deleted). Might not be right away, Wiki Loves Asia month is starting... Trying to up my translation skills there first. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (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.