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 delete. So Why 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheds[edit]

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

Play does not appear notable. No significant coverage in independent sources. Performed (self-produced?) in fringe festivals, so not a fully professional production. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs proper reviews to establish notability. Lacking this, delete. Plays or other media are not notable by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a bit out there but not enough in either quality or volume to meet GNG, ie NEXIST, in particular it seems to be repetative so nothing to make for a more in depth article. At the time or writing the article it looks like a TOOSOON, and nothing since. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article has since been updated with further information, references and sources. jcunningham.melb (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly the play had a little bit of coverage, but I suggest the additions unfortunately don't make the play sufficiently notable for WP. Suzy Go See is a blog; Stage Whispers reviews everything including amateur theatre. There don't appear to be any reviews or other coverage from credible publications like The Australian, The Guardian, Adelaide Advertiser, The Age, Herald Sun, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Boneymau (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article should not be deleted as it has been updated with correct and further information, references, sources and an image. tradiejimmy (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — tradiejimmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment a sockpuppetry investigation has been opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/jcunningham.melb. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I've blocked Tradiejimmy (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock puppet of Jcunningham.melb (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2017 (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.