Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic Theater Pittsburgh

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 - although without a strong consensus. Two of the users who were for deletion appear to have changed their minds (e.g., "Note that I have changed my opinion above, based on the Pittsburgh City Paper and the Pittsburgh Magazine articles. I'm still unconvinced about the separation of Broadway World from ticket sales, especially since they have a big Get Tickets link at the top, but that's all irrelevant now." - User:Gorgan almighty). One purpose of AfD is evident in its original name, which is to discuss the potential deletion of articles. Some more sources were added that included reviews of sufficient reliability to indicate at least minimal notability, or at least to a standard that most editors would agree. When some topic has been found notable due to sources and other information, the burden of proof falls on those wishing to delete, by a preponderance of the evidence, which has not been met here. I think this has been discussed enough, and sometimes it's just time to end a debate. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Theater Pittsburgh[edit]

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

Promotional article for a theater company of questionable notability. No significant coverage or claims of notability. Main references are primary sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The company hasn't had many productions yet, but has been reviewed in a major online resource for theatre, Broadway World.com. --Frankgorshin (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage, it may be notable in the future but it isn't now. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With new sources showing notability.Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also is notable for the unique niche it occupies in Pittsburgh's theatrical culture: It is the first theatre company in Pittsburgh to focus on ecological consciousness as part of its artistic mission.--Frankgorshin (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good for them, and for the city--but no significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm not going down without a fight! haha. If a theatre company is significant to a certain city, why is it not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? Pittsburgh is a well-known city, and its culture is considered notable. Organic Theater Pittsburgh is a unique element of this culture. If people want to know about this culture's relationship with ecological consciousness, this theatre company is one notable aspect of that relationship.--Frankgorshin (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good for you. But here's the thing: significance is one thing, but verifiability is another. You can only objectively (attempt to) measure significance by way of verified publications. Chances are, those publications (newspaper and magazine articles, and not just in the free weekly) will come, and by that time perhaps notability by Wikipedia's standards can be proven. BTW, I found it hard to find anything ecological there, but I spent most of a long weekend inside the Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh Downtown--I'm sure there is more to Pittsburgh than that. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well see, that's just why we need an ecologically conscious theatre company! We have come a long way from being the "Smoky City", at least. I will definitely keep an eye out for more verified publications dealing with this theatre company (which I'm sure will appear over time), and incorporate these references into the article as long it continues to exist.--Frankgorshin (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And if it ceases to exist, I will be glad to userfy it for you, and you can bring it right back to life when the coverage is there. Now, if that isn't ecologically sound... Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for that! In some ways, I'm still something of a novice in Wikipedia world, so that would be very helpful.--Frankgorshin (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another publication to the article's references. I expect more will be coming in soon.--Frankgorshin (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references so far provided (and none of the references I could find on Google) were independent of the theatre company in question. broadwayworld.com seems to be an online ticket office publishing promotional articles only. All those references do is establish the existance of the theatre company. There seems to be no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. I recommend that the author(s) of the article read that notability guideline, so that they understand why this article is non-notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed my opinion due to the addition of the Pittsburgh City Paper and the Pittsburgh Magazine articles. I encourage the previous posters to relook at the references in the article, or for the closing admin to note that the above Delete opinions were posted before these articles were added (or even written). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway World, like most publications, publishes promotional articles as well as reviews. I have referenced both a promotional article and a review from Broadway World in the article. There is also a reference to a review from Out Online, a well-known LGBT publication in Pittsburgh.--Frankgorshin (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just added a reference to a review from Pittsburgh City Paper.--Frankgorshin (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, upon closer inspection, I can find nothing on Broadway World that suggests that it's just an "online ticket office." The online ticket office that this theatre company uses is actually brownpapertickets, if you look closely at the both the Broadway World articles. There is a promotional aspect to the website, certainly, but no more than any newspaper which publishes promotional pieces about upcoming theatre productions.--Frankgorshin (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference to a review from Pittsburgh Magazine.--Frankgorshin (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I look over these reviews, they all seem to be pretty strongly positive. It's difficult for a theatre company to get reviewed, and it's even more of a challenge to garner positive comments once reviewed. Clearly, this company has had enough significance to Pittsburgh culture to receive this kind of coverage.--Frankgorshin (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have changed my opinion above, based on the Pittsburgh City Paper and the Pittsburgh Magazine articles. I'm still unconvinced about the separation of Broadway World from ticket sales, especially since they have a big Get Tickets link at the top, but that's all irrelevant now. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:00, 29 July 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.