Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting Star Theatrics


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shooting Star Theatrics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Page appears to have been made to promote a personal business (violation of WP:SOAP). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am the creator of this page, and not the owner the production company, nor I am involved the operations of it. It is also not a business, but a non-profit organization. This is my first attempt at writing an article and the help said to write about something I know. I am primarily involved in community level theatre and musical groups. They are notable to those of us who frequent them. Also, Hamilton Theatre Inc. has there own page and is similar to Shooting Star Theatrics My next articles were to be on the Burlington Concert Band (the one in Ontario, not the one who already has a page) and the Dundas Valley Orchestra. Should I not bother? I would cite that grass-roots theatre groups are on par with minor league sports teams. Such as the Fort Erie Meteors. They draw 100-200 per game, the same as the large venue performances of Shooting Star. Several newspaper articles have been written about the company in the Hamilton Spectator, but they predate the articles available on the website. Please comment, or make suggestions for improvement as I'd hate to lose my first page. User:Dannomyte

Here are some other articles from similar organizations. Georgetown Little Theatre McMaster Musical Theatre North Toronto Players Hamilton Theatre Inc. Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company Theatre Aurora Windsor Light Music Theatre User:Dannomyte
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Due to the nature of Wikiepdia being editable by anyone, the existence of other articles is generally not a strong argument for keeping this one. Each article needs to be taken on its own merits.  In order to meet wikipedia's inclusiion guidelines, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  also under consideration is the scope of the coverage.  Shooting Star Theatrics certainly gets coverage, but all of it is in local papers.  For example:  SNAP Hamilton is a free community paper.  Hamilton News is a community paper covering Hamilton and the recently merged towns.  View Magazine is a local Hamilton arts magazine.  I am not able to find coverage outside of these community papers, so it does not appear that the inclusion guidelines are satisifed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of the article creator and for my own curiosity, could you point out the WP policy that states that local/community papers are always considered unreliable? Locality is not mentioned in either of the WP:N or WP:RS policies you mentioned. In particular, WP:NEWSORG doesn't mention geographic extent. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect to your first question, See WP:GNG bullet point 3 which advises editors that the nature of the sources need to be considered when evaluating notability. There's a huge difference betweeen a major national daily like the Globe and Mail, and a monthly community paper like SNAP Hamilton.  With respect to your second questions, refer to WP:ORG which notes that not for profit organisations normally would need to be national or larger is scope. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently researching offline sources to broaden the reference base of this article. There was coverage by the Hamilton Spectator, a newspaper with readership of a couple hundred thousand, around 2009, which predates their online archives. It will likely take me to about Sunday to have this.--24.141.197.192 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)



Have added Hamilton Spectator articles. --Dannomyte (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete looking at the coverage that has been received - I have to conclude that this isn't reaching the level of significant independent coverage that would be needed - it would be quite normal for a dramatic group to have local/regional newspaper mentions of productions they are holding, unfortunately doesn't imply notability - I think more in-depth critical coverage of the contribution the group has made to the world of theatre or the community in some respect would be ideally what is required. It is not much consolation, but there are similar groups which are in the same position, see Runway Theatre Company for example.  nonsense  ferret  15:11, 6 February 2013 (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.