Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control booth

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Control booth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And what did you do to answer that question before nominating the article for deletion? If you want to honestly say that a subject has no in-depeth independent reliable sources, then you must check that for yourself. AFD is not a notability testing service. You are supposed to put in the effort to check that yourself before coming to AFD, otherwise you are just tagging articles and offloading your work onto other editors. I found chapter 15 of ISBN 9781483278353 almost immediately, which is an entire chapter in an Elsevier book about this subject. What research did you do? Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is obviously an encyclopedic topic. The fact that the article is currently poorly referenced and not well written is not relevant to its notability. The information will be found in numerous books about theatrical/film/tv production and architecture. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Clearly notable subject, for which reliable sources instantly appeared once cursory effort was expended to find them. jp×g 07:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is encyclopaedic, and meets notability. Could do with more attention to making it a good article though. --RedHillian | Talk 22:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable subject. Sonofstar (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, sources added - more than enough for WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:03, 19 April 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.