Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fritz Theater

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fritz Theater

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

I could not find and sources for this article. It appears to be a non-notable theater company. No improvements in over 2 years. TJ Black (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I live in San Diego and I can tell you that the Fritz is/was as non-notable as they come - a very small, very experimental company that rarely rated a review in the local paper even when they had a place to perform. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there has been coverage of plays that occurred a said theater by the LA Times and SDUT there doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage of the subject of this article to warrant it passing WP:GNG. Subject of article may be sufficient to be covered under WP:LOCAL, however, it needs to pass WP:GNG first, and it doesn't look like there is sufficient secondary or tertiary reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article as the primary focus of the writings. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2011 (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.