Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield University Theatre Company (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- jonny - m t  02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield University Theatre Company
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Article about a theatre company that fails to assert notability through means of verifiable third party references (or any other means, for that matter). Talk Islander 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No concensus to delete. Sutco is an establish theatre company with apparent roots being traced back to 1996 if not earlier as shown on its website (which is linked on the Wiki page). Short of repeating every show sutco has put on (which can be found on the website) on the Wiki, what further notability is needed. --Mtbab (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Glad you asked.  Notability is established through reliable sources; independent, third-party sources about the subject of a non-trivial nature.  This would include newspaper articles about the company, not merely capsule reviews of its plays.  Fails WP:ORG, no reliable sources about the subject other than show reviews, something explicitly excluded from WP:RS.     RGTraynor  13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any independent media coverage of SUTCo. If the company is as notable as it claims one would expect to find references in major British newspapers. Pburka (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the university newspaper? and local Sheffield newspapers?--143.167.240.152 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: No on one (not independent) and yes on two, provided they are in-depth articles about the company and not merely reviews of the latest show or brief "X show opens tonight at SUTC" notes. Have you any such sources?    RGTraynor  15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Non that are online I don't believe, but I can certainly have a deeper look. Can I ask, having a look at various other Student theatre wikis myself, why aren't others also without such "notability" aren't coming under such deletion propsects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.240.152 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply 'cause they haven't been 'found' yet - I assure you that this article isn't being picked out specially - any article that fails WP:N receives similar treatment. If you find a set of suitable references, that assert the notability of the article, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Talk Islander 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conversely, except in rare instances -- I can think of one up at AfD a couple months ago that did pass -- very, very few student theater groups, or student organizations generally, pass WP:V or WP:ORG muster. It takes something like the Hasty Pudding Theatricals to pass.    RGTraynor  16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 22 May 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.