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The result was withdrawn. Thank you to those who ultimately provided sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Groundlings[edit]

The Groundlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

DELETE. Sources include a PR Newswire, Youtube, and a local clip from Los Angeles Times Entertainment. Doesn't seem notable to me. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep - one of the top improvisational comedy troupes in the country, springboard for any number of internationally famous actors and comedians, the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. They even had their own TV series. I'm rather amazed that the article is in as poor shape as it is but the subject easily passes WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep That this article would even come within a mile of discussion of deletion is astonishing to me. It is a HIGHLY notable company in its field, and the article was a pretty decent article until someone got the notion that much of the information in it could be deleted and THEN the article be put up for deletion for non-notability, when much of the notability had been deleted by that person! Definite keeper, with its pre-messed with content. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep Many of the sitcom and sketch comedy stars of the last two decades (and even some comedic actors who have switched to drama) have come from this troupe. It's the LA equivalent of Second City and the Upright Citizens Brigade, and there should be no doubt in retaining this article at all. Certainly a candidate for expansion, but in no way for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 08:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - plenty of Google news hits on the subject. --Holkingers (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Keep, Keep. One of the top comedy groups in the world. The list of alumnae alone ensures notability.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, Sources Sources. If its so incredibly notable, sure there is more than a PR Newswire and some spartan coverage to rely upon. JBsupreme (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not well sourced" does not equal "no sources exist". Otto4711 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Put your money where your mouth is guy. If sources cannot be coughed up then you can bet your bottom dollar this article won't stick. JBsupreme (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Source already if everyone's clamoring to keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another very poor AFD nomination. If you want sources, how about these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Google found them, why didn't the nominator?--Michig (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and recommend closing per WP:SNOW, the sources found by Michig are more than enough to pass the notability and verifiability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2009 (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.