Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracies Dinnertime 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This was a complex discussion, with a mix of deletes, redirects, merges, and keeps that were actually all specific as to why that choice was the only viable choice. Discussion appeared to successfully rebut the NPERIODICAL issues, but ultimately there was a rough consensus that the sourcing was inadequate to meet GNG. Normally, per ATD I'd go with the redirects, but as various !votes (on several sides) gave firm reasonings as to why a redirect was not suitable, I've opted for delete. If someone would like the material to add some into another article (or bits into different articles), let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Gracies Dinnertime Theatre

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL. Weak sources in the article. The sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.

Wouldn't be opposed if a portion of this article was merged into the Rochester Institute of Technology article per WP:STUDENTMEDIA. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature,  and Education. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * GDT started out on RIT, but was published and distributed on the University of Rochester, Monroe Community College, Rutgers University, and broadly in the city of Rochester, NY. It was never a RIT sanctioned organization, and really should not be merged with the RIT page. Kjoenth (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * re "No reliable secondary sources."
 * -Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
 * -A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
 * -A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
 * -Independent Press Association
 * -USAToday/Uwire Kjoenth (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Keep: Does not appear to fail WE:NPERIODICAL. Specifically, GDT was printed and released on a regular schedule and distributed through a press syndicate.
 * -Confer with similar notable student publications Harvard Lampoon, UW's Onion, The Cornell Lunatic, etc.
 * -The Democrat and Chronicle is a reliable secondary source unencumbered by any conflict of interest. --U664003803 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that D&C is a reliable source, but I'm wondering if it was just a passing mention or if it received significant coverage by the D&C. The newspaper is locked behind a paywall so I don't know. Additionally, a blog entry typically isn't reliable under WP:RSBLOG. Can't say for sure about an interview, if that meets WP:RS. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional comment I just saw that the interview is for a student-run project called the RIT Iceberg. It seems to be primary source material laid out in WP:INTERVIEW. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re the article in the D&C: the article is specifically about how GDT/Hell's Kitchen was trying to get more funding sources. Mentions their membership in Uwire and the Independent Associated Press. Has pull quotes from interviews with people at GDT, Hell's Kitchen, and the executive director of the Independent Press Association. Approximately 2/3 of newspaper page, 1st page of the business section. Kjoenth (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "blog entry typically isn't reliable"-- I am a novice at this sort of thing, but as the blog entry is written by one of the founders of GDT on the topic of the evolution of the logo, doesn't that make the blog a primary source as in "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"?
 * Contextually, it is difficult to see how a citation about the logo could from sources other than the publication itself or something written by one of the people involved with the publication.
 * I tend to agree with U664003803 that the pages that exist for other student-started satire publications offer good examples. Kjoenth (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was written by a person associated with the publication is why it DOESN'T show notability. Sources that show notability are reliable, secondary and independent. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * tl;dr: Keep
 * @My Pants Metal lists two broad categories supporting deletion:
 * Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL.
 * Weak sources in the article, including the observation that sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.
 * @My Pants Metal suggests merging a portion of this article into the Rochester Institute of Technology page per WP:STUDENTMEDIA.
 * I believe @My Pants Metal misunderstands what the relationship between GDT and RIT was. For this reason, I will begin with why the GDT article can not merge with the RIT entry
 * A.) GDT was never a RIT organization
 * GDT was founded by RIT undergraduates, but was never a RIT student organization. It remained an independent, student-run publication from its founding until its final issue in 2005. Since GDT was not a RIT student organization, the administration could not disband it. In the end, RIT President Al Simone resorted to prohibiting RIT organizations from assisting GDT. In the July-Dec 2004 issue of "Questions and Answers with Al Simone", President Simone outlined the steps the RIT administration would implement:
 * "I have decided that Institute property and resources will no longer be available for the production of Gracie’s Dinnertime Theatre. These resources include:
 *  Computers and servers owned or supported by RIT.
 *  The use of the HUB will no longer be available for the copying of the publication.
 *  Funds from Institute accounts cannot be used to purchase advertisements in the publication."
 * The administration's steps to deny GDT access to Institute resources were necessary because GDT was _not_ a RIT organization, and could not be disbanded by the Institute. For this reason, it has no place on the RIT wikipedia entry.
 * B.) Does not fail WP:NPERIODICAL
 * As noted by user @U664003803, GDT was published on a regular schedule--initially being weekly during RIT academic year, and then as it's circulation expanded to include the University of Rochester and Monroe Community College, weekly during their academic year's as well (taking into account differing timings of holidays when RIT was on the quarter system while the other universities were on the semester system).
 * GDT, as a member of Hell's Kitchen (a 501(c)(3) organization founded by GDT to act as an publishing umbrella organization for it and affiliated publications) would go on the have articles distributed to university publications nationwide through Uwire, and had at least one article reproduced in USAToday through the distribution of content through Uwire.
 * GDT/Hell's Kitchen would also be recognized by the Independent Press Association's(IPA) "Publication of the Month". One of the founders of GDT would be interviewed by the IPA for an article.
 * C.) Reliable secondary sources include the D&C and RIT itself
 * The nominator acknowledges that the Democrat & Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. While the article in question is behind a paywall, that does not invalidate that the article is about GDT/Hell's Kitchen with a focus on their circulation and finances. While it should not be necessary, I am happy to provide a copy of the content behind the paywall.
 * Since GDT was never a RIT organization--again, it was distributed on three campuses in Rochester, NY--citations on the RIT website, including those from the RIT library archives, and Reporter Magazine, and commentary about artwork on campus, are secondary sources in relation to GDT.
 * The distinction between GDT and RIT is critical in understanding the notability of the publication: it was a student-founded publication that published, weekly during the academic year, for 10 years (1995-2005). It was never affiliated with RIT, the University of Rochester, or Monroe Community College, but was staffed by students (and alumni) from all of these institutions, and distributed on these campuses for the entertainment of those students.
 * As far as I know, there had never been an inter -collegic publication founded and run by students in Rochester, NY prior to GDT, and certainly none that engaged in that activity for 10 years. All other publications I am aware of in Rochester were either aimed at the population of Rochester, or were official student publications restricted to the university they were affiliated with. Kjoenth (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment the USA Today source is a bare url which does not work.  are you able to find that reference please? We are saying the sources under consideration are:
 * -Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
 * So the people doing it get a couple of mentions in the local newspaper.
 * -A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
 * I think this one fails as a self published source.
 * -A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
 * This is referenced to Reddit and YouTube. This doesn't look like an in independent secondary source. Was the interview broadcast anywhere?
 * -Independent Press Association
 * This ref looks good. It would, however, be better if we had it in the source publication. This snippet is hosted on hellskitchen.org, along with most of the material referenced here, but that is a private domain owned by a an individual who avails themself of the privacy services afforded to private registrants and hosted by NameCheap inc - a low cost virtially hosted hosting service. This is problematic for most of the references here. Although there is no indication the snippet is anything but genuine, this would be how a hoax would be set up too. Presumably that snippet came from somewhere and we should reference that properly.
 * -USAToday/Uwire
 * As above, this bare URL reference needs addressing.
 * So, in summary, I think we need to do a bit more work to establish notability here, although there are potentially a couple of good sources here. If we can see what USA Today said, I may be closer to forming an opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a physical copy of the Independent Press Association writeup ("Cooking with Confusion in 'Hell's Kitchen'". Ink Reader. 1 (5): 3. November 1998.) I have not found a digital copy of that edition of IPA's "Ink Reader" on the web. The snippet hosted on hellskitchen.org is from "Ink reader". The IPA ceased operation in January 2007.
 * Similar for the USAToday/Uwire link, I have a hard copy printout of the original page. The material was USAToday reprinting an article. Unfortunately Uwire was bought in 2008 and suspended all wire services in 2009. Likewise USAToday did away with all the web pages that displayed reproduced material.
 * I am happy to provide reproductions of this materials in the talk, but ultimately what we are dealing with is link rot/material in physical form only.
 * Is the interview in Reporter Magazine (Boden, Jess (11 May 2001). "Life According to Gracies". The Reporter: 11. Retrieved 19 July 2023.) not an acceptable source? The argument I made was that, since GDT was not affiliated with RIT, RIT media count as independent sources. Kjoenth (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not just link rot, it is that the bare URL refs do not tell us where the information can be found. Ref 7, which you describe properly here, is inaccessible but properly described. You could put a link to your copy in the url parameter to allow review, and then ref 8 needs to be described in the same way. I gather from the date that it is October 1998, so us that issue 4? That would resolve the issue with ref 8. It is not essential that refs are available online, but there needs to be enough information that the original can be found. Likewise with the USA Today article, all we have is the URL. If this was published in the newspaper, we can search for it in various archives, but at this point we do not have any information as to the date of publication. I have carried out newspaper searches for this article and have not found it, but I have been searching "Gracies Dinnertime Theatre." Is the reproduced article credited to some other name?
 * The next question is to whether these sources amount to sufficient evidence of notability per WP:NPERIODICAL. Those guidelines list 4 "presumed notability" guidelines, but I see no evidence it meets any of those. Not to worry though, because the guidelines are clear that it may still be notable if it passes WP:N, so we are looking at the general notability guidelines. To be presumed notable we are looking for multiple significant reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. We have potentially two articles in the IPA and one article potentially published in USA Today. It is not nothing, but it is not multiple, as per GNG either (because multiple from a single author, the IPA in this case, would be treated together).
 * Additionally I have questions about how significant publication in the IPA newsletter actually is. The IPA is a small (and possibly now defunct?) grassroots member organisation. If they carry an article about one of their members in a newsletter, this fails on the independent criterion. I can see they were granted money to do their work and I am not saying they were unimportant as an association, but the notabilty guidelines require independent coverage. The USA Today presumably published an article without significantly addressing the source.
 * I also question whether any of these mentions are under the name in the article title, or whether the article is perhaps mistitled, but that point may be moot at this stage.
 * Although I am leaning delete here, I am reluctant to post that as a !vote. Is there an alternative to deletion here? You say it had no official status so it cannot be merged with the RIT page - yet if it were a recognised campus publication, I think it could be mentioned there. Or perhaps there are other places information could be merged? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy I'll go through the archives and pull up information about the interview with the IPA and the USAtoday link.
 * As for merging, I was initially dubious, but I now see the appeal of somehow merging into pages for RIT, the University of Rochester, and Monroe Community College. Since Gracies Dinnertime Theatre was staffed by students from all three campuses and distributed on all three campuses, it would have to someone be triply merged into them.
 * I joke, of course; that's an unreasonable action. Given RIT president Al Simone's position that GDT should not have access to any RIT resources, there is a sort of deliciousness at the idea of being merged into the RIT wikipedia page, though.
 * IPA is definitely defunct now, but with members like "Mother Jones" and "Bitch", calling it a grassroots member organization makes it sound much smaller than it was. Kjoenth (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a case that this passes GNG and that is the only criteria that applies. There was a promise to dig through archives to look for more material so holding off a decision to give for that but the sourcing needs to be evidenced to keep this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge Redirect with Rochester Institute of Technology per the discussion above. I am sorry that I don't think it passes WP:GNG nor WP:NPERIODICAL, but there is some information of interest here that could be retained - certainly enough for a section on the target page. It is worth a mention that such a periodical existed, and how it was received (or not, as the case may be). The merge will also involve a redirect from this page that preserves this page history, should the situation change - although it seems unlikely it will change as it has ceased publication. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Pinging in case they have not seen the relist comments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources just aren't there, and the intervening discussion doesn't lead me to believe that there's more, viable sources out there. Currently, the sourcing is lacking enough that there isn't even anything we could merge. signed,Rosguill talk 15:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sadly I agree, and the fact the discussion went quiet leads me to the reluctant conclusion that merge is not really viable. I am striking my merge, but moving to Redirect as a WP:ATD. This would, at least, preserve the page history that might be mineable for a paragraph that might be added to the RIT page. Do you oppose a redirect? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete with some regret; do not see references available to support notability. Nor is there an obvious target in the Rochester Institute of Technology article for a redirect or merge. - Indefensible (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.