Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown Little Theatre

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Little Theatre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non notable community theatre organisation. WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot justify keeping an article when the only source is the subject's own website. Wikipedia is not a lightly anotated directory to websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a reliable source in the article now. pburka (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for finding the source - I would still argue that this coverage is WP:MILL for a local community theatre. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There appears to be some reliable coverage here, tho it is minimal I think it helps the subject pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. I added a couple of sources. One is a very in-depth piece about their 25th anniversary in 1984. And there's tons of less notable stuff ... particularly in Georgetown publications. Nfitz (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:MILL amateur theatre company. A review of the article about its 50th anniversary confirms this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- MILL is an essay that argues we should ignore GNG and define notability based on things being unusual. It contradicts our guidelines and doesn't reflect Wikipedia consensus. pburka (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - pburka...but it’s generally regarded that amateur theatre companies are not notable. WP:CLUB says that non-profit organisations can be notable if there is “reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.” There has been no evidence of that so far. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may be, but so far none of the !voters have presented policy-based arguments for deletion. pburka (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The 1985 (and lesser 1981) article I added yesterday is from Toronto Star, the largest circulation newspaper in the nation, well outside the local area, and is in-depth reliable independent source, providing more than enough information to write an article. User:Cardiffbear88, why do you ignore that one? Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a ordinary amateur theater. One national article on its anniversary is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MILL is an essay that argues we should ignore notability guidelines and only have pages for topics that are unique, unusual, or out of the ordinary. This theatre is notable because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New RS has been added but is disputed as GNG; try a relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the improvements. This is not the same article which was nominated. Nfitz and others have added sources to show that this subject meets WP:N Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there’s some evidence that the Burlington Post and Independent Free Press sources are primary self-authored pieces, so shouldn’t count towards notability. I still strongly feel that we cannot base notability on one anniversary piece in the Toronto Star. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2020 (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.