Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Workshop

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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production Workshop

Production Workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Completely unsourced article, no extensive coverage by secondary sources. Josefaught (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not every Brown student organization is notable just because it is associated with Brown University. - Kzirkel (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep @Kzirkel: Retaliatory behavior from an ostensible sockpuppet account. Sources have since been added. Regarding coverage, see the entire chapter in a New York Times reviewed book entitled "Did I Really Found Production Workshop?." Also see this interview with Chris Hayes, who described PW to the Chicago Tribune as "genuinely one of the most formative and important experiences in my life." Filetime (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Members or former members of the club who have become significant and talk about the club do not make the organization significant. If I become the president of the United States and write about how formative my time in high school MUN was, does that make that club notable enough for its own Wikipedia page?2601:196:4900:15CD:C499:420C:A6AF:991C (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources could use some improvement as many of them aren't independent, but I think there is sufficient secondary source coverage that warrants keeping the article. The organization has a long history, many notable former members (although that in itself doesn't justify keeping, of course), and it seems to have a name for itself beyond Brown. It may be borderline due to the sources, but I think it should stay. -Pax Verbum 06:29, 5 September 2021 (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.