This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Theatre. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Theatre|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Theatre. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Theatre

Daniel Quinn-Toye

Daniel Quinn-Toye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, a case of WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man Talk 08:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • One of the sources for Romeo and Juliet is a review that mentions him favorably in regards to his performance as Paris - and there's some other coverage mentioning him in that role. With Voltron, that's kind of a sticky area. The film is considered to be notable enough for an article at this point in time since there's coverage and filming has begun. There's quite a bit of coverage that mentions Quinn-Toye, so one could argue that this could be considered a notable role for him since the film is now notable and there's coverage for him, even if there's no review. I'm not arguing for a keep, but it's kind of not as clear as I'd like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found a second review that mentions him. This review from The Stage also came up in a search specifically with his name, but it's paywalled so I can't tell if he's actually mentioned in the review or if it's just a cast listing.
    So this muddies the water even more, as this should be enough to establish that his performance as Paris is notable enough to count towards notability. It's not enough on its own - he would need at least one more notable role to really push NACTOR. So the question I have is this: can an actor be considered notable if they performed a major role in an unreleased film that passes NFF? The guidelines for entertainers doesn't specify that the productions have to have been released - just notable. I honestly don't think I've ever seen a situation like this one before - it's usually far more cut and dry with actors of unreleased films.
    Again, I'm not necessarily arguing for a keep. Assuming the film never releases and he never gains another role, this is going to make for an extremely weak article. I just want to make sure that this is considered if the choice is to redirect, as it could be used for precedent in the future. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anzel

Amy Anzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional article about a nonnotable TV presenter and actress written by an editor blocked for UPE. It's already been PROD'd or I would have tagged it for proposed deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Per Nom. Gratefulking (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked for socking. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG aside, the coverage is probably not enough to produce a decent article, under WP:SIGCOV. I considered redirecting, but like @Toadspike pointed out, it's hard to choose one to redirect to. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added articles with significant coverage, and revised wording to be impartial - page can be further improved but it passes WP:GNG. AwkoTaco19 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vimazoluleka

Vimazoluleka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them in media -- film reviews, evidence of noteworthy film awards, production coverage, that sort of thing.
But the only footnotes here are an article about the director's death which briefly namechecks this film without being about the film in any non-trivial sense (and doesn't even support the statement about the film's postproduction that it's footnoting), a press release from the film's own production studio, and a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get the film over GNG all by itself.
Further, even though the film was released in 2017 according to IMDB and the dating of the footnotes agrees with that, the creator wrote about this as if it were an "upcoming" film slated for release in 2024 -- and although I've corrected that nonsense already, there are other statements here (some completely unsourced, and the postproduction claim that isn't supported by the director's obituary) that may also be in question if they can't be properly verified. (I've also had to remove two other footnotes that had nothing to do with this film at all, and were present solely to falsely assert, because of the misrepresented release date, that it would be a "posthumous" work for cast and crew who died after 2017.)
As most coverage would likely be in Spanish, and the film actually came out long enough ago that the very low number of GNG-worthy Google hits might not be the whole story, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with good access to databases of Venezuelan media coverage from the 2010s can find enough solid sourcing to salvage it -- but especially given that the article contained significant falsehoods that just IMDb alone was able to smoke out, it really needs much better sourcing than it's got right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz. The article needs cleanup. I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En. -Mushy Yank. 05:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says it is about a play (or a musical? This is not clear), but the infobox is a film infobox showing the date of the film's release, and full of incorrect info, if this is an article about a stage work. The article is a mishmash of useless and conflicting information, if it is about a stage work, and it contains a bloated table showing the entire film cast, but little information about the stage work's production. It would be better to delete this article and write an article about the play (or musical?) instead that makes some sense. I tried to do some rewriting on the article to reorganize it and try to make sense of it, but all my edits were reverted without, apparently, considering any of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Afds are not for cleanup and I am the one who reverted your single edit to it because it was imv detrimental to what I thought was an improvement of the page; I thought that especially during this Afd your edit was making less clear what the page is about and how it is notable. The musical play is notable, and I have, since nomination, made it the primary subject of the page, which your edit made unclear; the film being its adaptation, the fact that it's covered in a section with an infobox does not seem to be a problem that deserves deletion. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 21:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think you can argue whether the sources pass sigcov thresholds, but to me it seems like the play meets GNG. The movie might not, but I don't think that's relevant to whether the adaptation is covered or not here in relation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I see bunch of online articles in Spanish which are not included within the article and I assume it at least fulfills WP:NBASIC. Here are few examples 1 2 3 4Instant History (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently added sources, and to address the question of whether factual inaccuracies are serious enough to warrant deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The recently added sources from @Mushy Yank and @Instant History appear to have enough significant coverage to meet notability. Madeleine (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You can see here that the article was initially started for the musical film and not the theatre play, so it should be treated as such. The sources added in the reception section discuss only the theatre play, not the film and one of them also mentions that the film was not released to the public.

    But beyond a few local screenings, such as the one in Puerto Cabello in September 2017, the feature film has not been shown to the public.

From what I can see, the director, Levy Rossel, and the play, Vimazoluleka, are very much notable. If either of those articles are created in the future, information about this unreleased film can be added there. But the absence of those articles at this point does not justify hijacking this article to make it about the play. The film fails WP:NFF and GNG as there are no reviews and insufficient independent sources with significant coverage of its production. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Please note that the shift of focus of the article was perfectly clarified (from the start, by me, fwiw) and that the film is based on the play (whose notability seems to be agreed upon) by the same director. Arguing it should be deleted because of such a shift and then recreated (with the same title, I suppose??) is pure and extreme bureaucracy, especially if it is to add a section about the film at the bottom (ie to recreate the article exactly as it is now!!!).-Mushy Yank. 10:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Following and enforcing policies and guidelines is not extreme bureaucracy. There is a reason why we have attributions and logs for everything, so it makes no sense to hijack the article in the middle of an XfD and completely rewrite it with a different topic, which also sets a bad precedent. Either way, no one is stopping anyone from creating an article for the play.
    Your comment above, Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz and especially I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En, comes across as ignorant of the film's notability. Instead of evaluating and searching for sources for Vimazoluleka (film), you took the easy way out by completely changing the context of the article and making your arguments support the changes you made. Sorry, but this XfD wasn't about the theatre play. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the easy way":D, "hijacking":D "ignorant of the film's notability":D. Etc.....If you say so. It's not as if I had explained myself nor edited the page with a dozen references from books to improve it, is it? "Following and enforcing policies and guidelines is not extreme bureaucracy." What guideline says that if an AfD about a work shifts its focus from that work to the original work it adapted (and that is, on top of it, by the same director and writer) it is "hijacking"? None. It's rather a common and good practice: when findings presented at an Afd allow to understand that an article should be improved and refocused, users can agree upon that. Inviting the closer to have a look at the following recent AfD and pinging @ReaderofthePack, who had precisely contributed to other AfDs in that spirit:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventurer at the Door. The act of refocusing the topic of an AfD (and the present case is not even extreme in that regard) is common practice and not a violation of any guideline; it is also why some AfDs can be closed as Merge/Delete/Rename. And what would set a bad precedent is to delete this and force (me, I suppose) to rewrite it just as it is. That would be bureaucracy of the most extreme and vexatious sort. "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination", says the guideline (only advising rather not to move pages). If users who improved articles or provide sources see that their efforts are discarded with an outright bureaucratic delete, that would be a very bad precedent. (And I did search for sources for the film and check the sources, :D by the way, and only said what I said out of humility, as I did not do so as thoroughly as I would if I hadn't seen the play was very notable). -Mushy Yank. 11:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the end of this XfD, if the community is okay with an editor changing the focus of an article in an ongoing XfD that is meant to determine whether a topic is notable or not, then I am absolutely fine with it as well. But what’s surprising is that you previously mentioned, "AfDs are not for cleanup", and then proceeded to do exactly that with the entire article. Right now, you have split the article with citation spam in the reception section for the play while the other half focuses on the film. This will likely remain in poor quality for years unless someone with an obscure interest in this topic decides to improve it. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? My (as everyone else's, I assume) references to "AfDs are not for cleanup" are about not nominating/arguing for deletion for cleanup reasons. Cleaning up the page during an AfD, which I do ALL THE TIME, extensively, is normal editing to help improve pages and demonstrate their subjects are notable, and it is, again, a recommended course of action and is even mentioned in almost every AFD template!!!! So that the latter is widely considered one of the correct responses, that demand a lot of efforts, to what a number of users think is an incorrect approach, and the inconsistency you seem to be keen to detect in my input does not appear to be real. The rest of your comment seems to be speculation. If you think the article needs improvements, feel free. If you are not interested in this topic, don't. I will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 13:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would have been good to mention the change on the AfD before making it, but ultimately I think Mushy Yank had the right idea here.
    I've been searching for the film and offhand, it looks like it was never actually released. It was created and there were plans to release it, then Rossell suffered a stroke in 2017 and died the following year. This article about the death mentions it as not yet released. Now, one of the stage performances was theatrically broadcast but that's a different beast than a film adaptation. A search with the play's name and the actors (but not Rossell's) doesn't bring up much. I found this 2023 article about another film, which briefly mentions the movie. It comes across kind of like it has yet to be released, at least from what I can see via Google Translate.
    So this is likely one of two situations: one is that the film was shelved and never released. The other is that it did release, but to no true fanfare. I'm aware that Google doesn't always do well with non-English language sources or non-US/European sourcing, but I feel like there would be some mention somewhere if it released, given the play's popularity. Whichever way it goes, it looks like the film doesn't pass NFILM as it hasn't received enough coverage of the production (that can be found) to show how it passes NFF or if it's released, it doesn't seem to have received any sort of reviews or other coverage to show how it passes NFILM. I think that making this page about the play is the right choice given that otherwise this would likely have ended in a deletion. I do think that Mushy Yank should have mentioned this on the talk page and gotten a thumb's up from another editor first, but I think the end result would have still been inevitable. Of course there's the chance that someone could pop in with a ton of sourcing that makes this pass NFILM, but even in that situation the play seems to be the more notable of the two and should be the one at the non-disambiguated name. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the 2023 source you found refers to the same film but has misattributed it to a different director. You can cross verify the other information about the film here and fwiw, all the latest sources confirm that the film was never released to the public. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alright, what we now have is an article about a play, and its film adaptation. That's fine; the article is entitled Vimazoluleka, not Vimazoluleka (film), and we can hardly call this a hijacked article if one is an adaptation of the other. So: does this play (and/or the film) meet notability guidelines? Is this all such a confusing mess that we need to get out the WP:TNT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the basis of Mushy Yank's improvements. More information on the play would be extremely useful, but there is (just) enough there to get it over the notability bar. The relation beween the play and the film (whether or not released) is now clear and the film is still dealt with, which preserves continuity with the original poor article (to the extent to which that matters). There is not so much content that it is difficult to treat both in one article, and to do so seems entirely appropriate. TNT is not justified now. Difficult to believe (then again, perhaps not) that anyone could actually interpret "AfD is not cleanup" to mean that articles should not be improved during AfD - nonsense. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Though related to the topic, entirely changing the article from a film to a play during an ongoing AfD isn't cleanup but rather a desperate attempt to keep the article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Theatre
No tags for this post.