Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Georgetown Improv Association (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. Those arguing for deletion point out that while the article is "sourced", those sources are either not independent, or do not discuss the subject in detail. Those recommending the article be kept fail to rebut these claims, and, as such, fail to persuade within the discursive requriements of WP:GNG. If anyone wishes a copy of the article in userspace, I will provide one, and it appears that if the group were to receive just a little more independent coverage it may be possible for the article to be recereated. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Georgetown Improv Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This was sent to AFD earlier in the year, but it does not appear the article has improved.

There are absolutely no sources on the article that are independent of the subject (The Hoya is the Georgetown student paper), and that leaves one source that simply mentions a comedian was a member of this group. Unless reliable sources outside of Georgetown publications can be provided, this page should be deleted. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This improv troupe hosts one of the oldest festivals in the country.  At the time of this nomination, there were actually four sources included in this article that are not a Georgetown student paper.  I just added a few more.  And notability hasn't decreased since the editors at the previous AFD kept this article.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say about the subject needs to be supported by reliable sources and the sources need to focus on the subject. And the sources on the article that are not directly affiliated with GU barely mention the "Improv Association" (the Birbiglia one doesn't even use the same name) and are probably not reliable sources anyway.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, I don't know what's changed since February, when this article was Kept after a similar argument against campus news sources. The group name that Birbiglia uses in the Gothamist article is actually explained right in the article's history section.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not independent reliable sources, and the other sources on the page are also not reliable. That is why I am revisiting this.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - without giving an opinion about the article itself (I have commented on others elsewhere and am waiting to see if some can be brought up to scratch) I would like to make a suggestion: a good start would be to remove all the references from The Hoya and other on-campus student sources so that you can argue your case against only reliable, independent sources. Link spamming reference from The Hoya is only going to make other editors think (rightly or wrongly) that the article fails WP:GNG and that involved (in some cases openly COI) editors are trying to create notability where it does not exist. Whether you agree or not, consensus seems to be that those sources are not independent. Given the article for The Hoya openly says the paper has financial links to the University, tried to cut them and failed, it is easy to see how that conclusion could be drawn. Get rid of them, build your case with the independent sources you say exist and these articles will all be saved. The reality is that if an article relies (entirely) on The Hoya to meet the "significant coverage" tag then it probably fails WP:GNG already, regardless of independence. Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most of the reliable sources are about upcoming shows, e.g., "Georgetown Improv Association presents ..."Washington Post April 21, 2012 I did find "." Another one that may have some bearing on the topic (not much) is "" The one article that actually provides several sentences on the topic,Washington Times December 16, 2000 notes "Georgetown University offers its students the Georgetown Players Improv Group. Georgetown also hosts an "improvfest" each spring, for which comedy groups from universities nationwide are invited to perform in the nation's capital." However, that is about "Georgetown Players," not "Georgetown Improv". Apparently, they are about the same topic, but the multiple names for the topic may be why people can't find source material on it. I looked several ways for source material and didn't find enough to meet WP:GNG. I'm not against using student news papers to meet WP:GNG in general, but I'm starting to see The Hoya come up in several AfDs and whereas other student newspapers are not commonly brought up at AfD. I might have to rethink my position. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Georgetown Players Improv Group and the Georgetown Improv Association are the same- as noted in the Wikipedia article, the troupe's name was changed. I have added the Washington Times link to the article, which is certainly a reliable source. --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AFD clearly does not have a consensus to delete, and I'm wondering how long admins will allow the AFD to stay open without a result.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - well I for one said I would wait to see if this could be brought up to scratch. But I don't think it has, so I'll help with consensus by giving an opinion. In my opinion, the article still relies on blogs, student newspapers and passing mentions in articles focussed on things other than the subject. On balance, I still don't think it meets WP:GNG. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2012 (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.