Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maui Academy of Performing Arts


 * 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maui Academy of Performing Arts

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Has little third party source, most of the references are from the organization's website itself. Fails WP:CORP.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Im in the middle of adding third party sources. The reference information that is from the organization's website is descriptive and aggregate information that frankly would not be likely posted anywhere else. The media would likely get their information from the organization. Doing a simple google search shows a number of electronic third party references. The organization has been around for 30 years and has can continuous local media coverage in that time. Also, MAPA falls under WP:ORG. Btakita (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like another party to weigh in on this, preferably somebody familiar with Maui art and/or local (count & state) theater culture. I have been providing more and more references and external links, but I think they take away from the article. I can literally flood the page with hundreds of external, verifiable, and reliable references, but I think that will distract from the essential information in the article. I would also rather not have to go through the effort of obtaining all of the print references. How many and what sort of articles are needed to not get this article deleted? Btakita (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The typical minimum to meet the notability standard is two instances of non-trivial coverage in outside sources. E.g. two newspaper articles about the center. I see a bunch more than two on Google News, so you should be okay on that count. Beyond that, though, articles should be written by primarily by summarising what independent sources have already said about the subject, rather than by writing one's own personal knowledge of the subject or repeating what the subject of the article says about itself, so in that sense, the more references added to an article, the better. I'll add this one to the Hawaii deletion sorting list to maybe get a local's attention, but from my perspective, this is a topic for which Wikipedia should have an article, and we can all work together to improve it. cab (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per what I just said. cab (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - it now has multiple non-trivial references from three separate reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article meets the notability requirements and satisfies the original complaint. Btakita (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (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.