Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Launceston Players

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. Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Launceston Players (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)

Unreferenced promotional stub for a company that fails WP:GNG. The creator of the article is also very clearly associated with the company, considering their username is identical to the article's title. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Australia. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Plenty of coverage in Trove. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've removed the lines promoting a modern production and its quality as presumably contributed by the creator of article, but added a range of history sources and sites highlighting the output of the organisation. RossRSmith (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poorly written and neglected article, but this is apparently the oldest still-operating amateur theatre group in Australia. It is covered in an academic journal article and the many news articles listed on their AusStage entry (which is only older articles stored on Trove, not comprehensive) show sufficient coverage for notability. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 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.