Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Children's 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The result was withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes. The article requires cleanup, but the appropriate place to deal with that is the talk page rather than AfD. (non-admin closure) Intelligent  sium  22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Children's Theatre
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can find no WP:RS which give "substantial coverage" of this organization, just announcements and reviews of plays. The award is one given by the Seattle mayor and is hardly a major award, The only ELs are self published sources. There are no references, I believe that the subject of this article fails WP:ORG. It was prodded and deleted by User:Nyttend (15:27, 6 April 2010 Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "Seattle Children's Theatre" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Un-addressed advert tag from July 2009, unreferenced, no indication of notability, appears to fail WP:ORG)). It was then re-instated by User:Tracer9999  I have not been able to notify the artcile creator as the history is lost. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I withdraw my nomination as I have found enough RS to support the notability of the organization. I have added therm to the article. More is needed, especially for the history of the organization and the artcile needs a thorough cleanup. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I removed the prod because there is major news coverage and a prod is not appropriate for the removal. Also, its not just a mayors award.  they also claim "2004 TIME Magazine's #2 ranking in the top five children's theatres in the nation."  The news articles do not ONLY review plays. according to one article,  They sell 200,000 tickets a year, present more premieres of new work than any comparable theater in the country, and that CTC and SCT are clearly the Big Two of children's theater in this country, there is even a book on amazon, Seattle Children's Theatre: Six Plays for Young Audiences.. and thats just from the first few google pages. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the statements in the article being supported by citations. As to the book, they published it themselves.  I am not disputing the subject of the artcile, merely that at present there is nothing there to substantiate notability for Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in here, but wanted to express agreement with this: the article needs citations. Without them, the article does not meet our standards for quality. Note that is a different assertion entirely from the assertion that the organization covered by the article does not meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (sdsds - talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that this article has mostly edited by someone at the Seattle Children's Theatre and that may be considered a Conflict of Interest. The editor in questions IP address 216.162.196.154 resolves to the organizations mail server at mail.sct.org. Im not up to date on COI.. But Im almost never comfortable with an org editing there own pages especially without disclosing they are editing. Just figured it should be mentioned -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to be terribly concerned about COI from a Childrens Theater - this is a different proposition from, say, a political campaign or a pharmaceutical company. It is natural that someone at the theater would want the article to be well written and cover what they consider important aspects of the theater; I would only object if any overly effusive content is edit warred over, or there is a scandal of some kind which the editor is seeking to repress. This is not the case here. Remember WP:COI does not mean you cannot edit articles in which you are interested, only that you cannot edit against NPOV due to your interest. Only then dos the "conflict" part of "COI" occur. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep source and cleanup. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no current affiliation with SCT. At the time I created the article my only affiliation was as a customer of the services they provide to the community. I note much of the current article reads like promotional material, but also note that is not a reason for article deletion, which is a much more severe action than merely trimming the article back to a stub. FWIW the organization definitely does meet wikipedia notability requirements, even if only as a major tenant at Seattle Center, like the Space Needle and Pacific Science Center. Unless there is some suggestion those institutions are also non-notable? (sdsds - talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is no way this organization fails to meet the criteria of Notability (organizations and companies). Not. No. Uh-uh. Oops.  Apology accepted in advance, since WP:AGF requires assumption that assertion it does not resulted only from well-intentioned but naive lack of knowledge. (sdsds - talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My motivation for this Afd has been questioned. I came across the article whilst assessing un-assessed articles with the theatre project banner. I nominated a number for WP:PROD. If the prod was declined, I looked at them again and if necessary brought them to AfD. WP:NOTE says:


 * The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large, to support a claim of notability.


 * The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.


 * That is why, uncited, this artcile does not currently demonstrate notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rescue is an excellent suggestion. Quibbling over a detail in policy -- as a community of editors we should strive not to confuse the quality of an article with the notability of its subject! For anyone attempting the rescue: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Eog&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22children%27s+theatre%22+site%3Anwsource.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= (website of a major Seattle print newspaper) shows 'about 1,370 from nwsource.com for "children's theatre".' (sdsds - talk) 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that most of these are simply announcements of new seasons, play reviews, etc. That isn't substantial coverage. There are a lot of hits for Seattle Childrens' Hospital in there, also storiesabout the arrest and conviction of a theatre employee on child porn charges. I see taht someone has added thsoe - I don't think they are particularly neccessary as the employee had no conatct with children at the theatre and was employed on their website as far as I can gather. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The guy was a pedophile working at the number 2 childrens theater in the united states. I think thats pretty notable. I don't think he took the job on accident. He didn't take a job at IBM. He took a job where kids are present. where did you read he had no contact with children? -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, here, here, and here. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

what is the org going to say? please sue us?

"Hoke intentionally placed himself in a position near children," said Assistant United States Attorney Mary K. Dimke in her sentencing memo. "In the past three years, more than two-thirds of his viewing of the bulletin boards at issue were from his office, a business that caters to children."" <---seems to me over three years of noone noticing this is pretty bad. regardless.. thats more for the talk page.  so we can discuss that there if you like rather then clutter the AFD. -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (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.