Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre Ademi

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Ademi (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)

Delete as non-notable, irrelevant, illiterate nonsense. MurrayGreshler (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone -- this article was created in 2014 in Russian by an editor who created one other article, Janysh Kulmambetov, then disappeared forever. I worked my a** off to make the Kulmambetov article, to which I am willing to grant a measure of borderline notability, somewhat comprehensible in English. I tried the same with Theatre Ademi but its inherent lack of notability caused me to give up shortly and nominate it here. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response a good deal more civil than that it was a reply to. I still think illiterate is unkind, though. TheLongTone (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Kyrgyzstan. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Non-notable is a reason for deletion: I've no opinion here since I am not qualified to assess the sources. Irrelevant is opinionated tosh. I don't think anything to do with kick-the-ball relevant, but am aware that I'm very much in a minority here. Illiterate.... well, I'd cast doubts upon the nominators coomand of the English language here; the article is clearly written by somebody who is not a native English speaker. Which is no reason to be sniffy: it's a reason to indulge in a bit of benevolent copyediting. And nonsense... I understood it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All but two of the references do not work, and those two do not demonstrate significant coverage of the company. This appears to be a touring troupe that performs in schools and has only produced about one work per year. The article claims that the company has released films, but no evidence has given that it has done so or that any such films are noteworthy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2022 (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.