Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HighTide

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HighTide

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

to my opinion unsalvageable advertising The Banner talk 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's certainly overly promotional at present, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. Per WP:ARTSPAM, it could be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view, including removal of peacock terms and all the (presumably highly selective) quotes from reviews. A NewsBank search finds 17 articles with "HighTide" in the headline in national newspapers, all of which appear to be on topic, so I see little doubt that it's notable. Qwfp (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject shows a lot of google, particularly reviews of the plays. The article might have a promotional tone, but you can't hold that against the subject. There are lots of formatting problems, I cleaned up a few revealing more sources clearly. The list of performances, while already long is seriously incomplete/out of date, the prose substituting for listings of plays. None of these problems amount to a case for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs some serious trimming (or the addition of more references), but it clearly meets WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2014 (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.