Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squallis Puppeteers

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 - no consensus for deletion. The arguments that have been presented in favour of keeping the article are reasonable. - Richard Cavell 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squallis Puppeteers

Listed as a PROD for self-promotion and non-notability. However, has been featured on several episodes of a public broadcasting show and mentioned several times in the local paper, including [1] a mid-length article just about the troupe. Has a few mentions in the 2 biggest papers in Kentucky [2] but nothing else that I can find. It's not a whole lot, but really how much coverage do you expect a troupe of puppeteers to get? I admit the article is pretty light, it's not a serious review or history or anything. I just didn't feel PROD was best... a bit more discussion is needed. Mark me down as neutral for now. --W.marsh 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be a speedy based on the actual article content, but the links above probably push it just out of speedy territory, if not by much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes them notable? I just don't see it. It comes off to me as a group trying to build itself up in the marketplace (including getting a newspaper to do a little fluff write-up), and using the Wikipedia as one piece of their marketing. I wish them well, but they don't deserve an encyclopedia article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before characterizing this article as nothing more than “a group trying to build itself up in the marketplace”, you might take note that: “Squallis Puppeteers is a community based non-profit organization dedicated to performing innovative theater” link. I'm still forming my opinion, but it seems to me the non-profit/community based nature of this group should play into our decision. Fixer1234 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is non-profit doesn't mean it isn't spam/self-promotion. My blog is 100% non-profit, but I wouldn't in a million years write a wikipedia article on it, and if I did I'd expect it to be deleted just as if it was a for-profit business of equivalent notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this wasn't created by a drive-by editor but someone who's editted other topics [3] is the strongest evidence to me that this isn't automatically spam. --W.marsh 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I've written features articles about the Squallis Puppeteers for a college newspaper, but I'm not a member of the Squallis Puppeteers nor have I worked for them. It's a regularly performing group, well known in Louisville. The article is still pretty light right now but it does have an original photo from Ben Chroneos (also not a member). (I'd post more but I'm heading out the door -- more tomorrow perhaps). Jordansc 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anyone can come up with anything that would suggest that the group is notable, then I would not have to assume that the Wikipedia is being used for its promotion. That they are a community-based non-profit doesn't make them notable, nor that they are an arts group. Newspaper articles are written about all sorts of non-notable subjects all the time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are written about non-notable subjects, but we're talking about an organization - not a mugging. "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." <-This criteria has been fulfilled. The newspaper articles & KET segment are multiple, non-trivial, published, reliable, and independent. They are spread out over years and cover several different events and aspects of the organization: this isn't the result of a media blitz. And, really, who else is going to cover a Louisville-based puppet group? Jordansc 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But what facts make them notable? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Though they also do children's shows, they're Louisville's only adult puppet group. (2) They've been around 10 years. (3) They're popular (as evidenced by LEO's Reader's Choice). (4) They've performed a number of shows at major venues (The Boxer at Kentucky Theater, Trash at the MeX). (4) They're very active (as evidenced by the sheer number of references to them in LEO's calendars and elsewhere). (5) They're an established non-profit organization (as opposed to a group of amateurs who get together on weekends and make puppets). Jordansc 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't complain if the article is kept. And I can see some very isolated notability here, but then, that's my problem -- the notability is very isolated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you concede that that they've "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject," then you've conceded that they are notable by Wiki standards. I don't need to give any further facts to prove that they're notable beyond pointing to articles written on them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:non-notable#Notability_is_not_subjective copied below. And, given that I'm not a member of Squallis Puppeteers nor have I ever been affiliated with them, the self-promotion claim has also been addressed. I think both reasons given for deletion have been sufficiently answered. Jordansc 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Puppeteers have any regional or national recognition, via news articles? That would be objective. I really can't get over how I've never heard of them, and I was born and raised here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only national coverage is the review in The Puppetry Journal. Everything else is local or perhaps regional: LEO is definitely local; The Courier Journal and KET are viewed statewide but the events covered were Louisville-based. Jordansc 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Squallis Puppeteers appear to be well-known in Louisville, Kentucky. They apeared in various articles in the Courier-Jounrnal (link) and the Louisville Cardinal. The Cardinal has done a feature story on them. At least 4 mentions of them have been printed in these papers within the last month. They have been reviewed by The Puppetry Journal, which is the official magazine of The Puppeteers of America, Inc.. Regional groups such as this--that are well-known and active in cites of 600,000 people--are notable. Fixer1234 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've lived in Louisville most of my life. Never heard of them. I'm not saying they aren't worthy to go see, but that this group is totally new on me. Mentions in a few articles doesn't make a group "well-known", only slightly "well-reported", like so many things that are well-reported, but not notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notability is not subjective: "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:non-notable#Notability_is_not_subjective Jordansc 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know if my vote counts since I created the page, but I think it's pretty evident that the Squallis Puppeteers are notable. They were #2 in the Louisville Eccentric Observer's reader's choice awards for performing groups[4]. The LEO (Louisville's alternative weekly) has mentioned them at least 28 times. They've been around since 1997. They're an actual non-profit organization with funding and sponsors - not just a group of amateurs. They have their own workshop. They draw crowds of 100+ people. We have a number of significant, independent sources covering them - the Courier Journal, Louisville Eccentric Observer, KET, etc. Unless Wikipedia is only dedicated to nationally known entities, this seems like all the notability one should need. Jordansc 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second place in a reader's choice award for a local paper isn't enough for notability. Multiple article mentions alone isn't enough for notability. There needs to be facts that make this group stand out enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I don't see enough here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reader's Choice Award wasn't the lynch pin of my argument. I included that only as supporting evidence. What would establish their notability for you? Jordansc 14:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional or national recognition, via news articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Their notability seems to be very, very isolated, and while I'm all for inclusion of organizations at the "cusp" of WP:NOTE, there really doesn't seem to be any notability beyond a few passing references, one student newspaper review, and a trade organization review. If they had attracted some significant regional attention, I would think differently, but I think their notability, such as it is, is far too narrow for inclusion right now. Lemonsawdust 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found three more articles on Squallis Puppeteers in the Courier Journal's archives. They look like they deal primarily with the puppeteers and they're pretty substantial (one's 669 words). Unfortunately, they all have to be purchased. Jordansc 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a local group. But it is notable locally. Being as such you are only going to find them sourced in local media. M-BMor 10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important puppeteer troupe for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. The only WP:RS information independent from and about Squallis Puppeteers is Louisville: The Crowning: A Story of Birth, Dialogue, February 28, 2001, Volume 24; Issue 1, Page 42, which is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. There are 10+ newspaper notifications about their up coming performances, which is not useful on Wikipedia. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have a hard time imagining how anyone can actually look at the newspaper articles Fixer has linked for us and still suggest deletion. They include genuine articles about the group, and not just notices of upcoming gigs. While I completely reject the quaint notion that non-profit groups should get a free pass through WP:V (somehow I can't find any mention in official policy about how Nice Groups are exempt), the fact is they pass on the merits. RGTraynor 13:36, 25 April 2007 (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.