Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Theatre Guild—The Founders Story
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 both; as first-person accounts, these are not attributable. Trebor 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Musical Theatre Guild—The Founders Story
Completing abandoned nomination by User:Alex Bakharev. This appears to be a response to Musical Theatre Guild, which is itself in need of a makeover. I have no idea whether the group's notable or not, but either way, WP isn't the place for two people to give dueling accounts of an organization. If an article should exist at all, it should be the original. Djrobgordon 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or delete per nom; both articles need cleanup. This company is well-known in the LA theatre community, with multiple nominations and some wins in local theatre awards (e.g. [1], which seems to establish notability. Flyguy649 (talk-works) 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I wrote BOTH articles. The facts in them are true and I was a member of the board and witnessed all accounts. I have documentation and correspondences to prove all points mentioned. It was a member of the current theater company that came along and changed the original, deleting information on the demise of the original founders, which was the intent of the original article. If there was a problem with the title not reflecting that, I have no problem with the change of title. That's why I wrote the second article and added in "The Founders Story." This theater company is the only one of it's kind to our knowledge (being a membership musical company that produces staged readings) and had several West Coast Premiere's including Sondheim's PASSION. I have been contacted by many people thanking me for writing the original article as it was never publicized as to why the original founders were no longer a part of the company and the current company has withheld information from the public and in fact doesn't tell it's current membership about the original founders at all. That's why they chose to delete the information from the original article, so people couldn't find out that they kicked the founders out of their own company with no foundation and even prevented them from attending the meeting in which they were removed (which is against Robert's Rules of Order.) I would rather have the original article The Musical Theatre Guild removed and my new one The Founders Story left in. If the current theater company wants to write their own article leaving out truths, they can surely do so.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtguild (talk • contribs) 23:31, February 24, 2007.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (o rly?) 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge This entry has given me some questions. Its a nice article in itself, and I did check the website, but is this really a notable guild. The article title Musical Theatre Guild - the Founders Story sounds like a book. I live in UK so this article may be something that relates purely to Los Angeles but really if this article is agreed as being noteworthy then it should be in an Musical Theatre Guild article with The Founders Story as a headline on the page. If founders are then coming onto Wikipedia to vandalise articles that contain the truth (but its not pleasant for those it talks about) then it should be taken up via the appropriate channels. --PrincessBrat 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Here's what happened. User:Mtguild wrote the article Musical Theatre Guild. Another editor removed some material from that article which Mtguild thought was important, and rather than re-insert it, he wrote this response article (It appears that Mtguild is one of the "Founders" in question. The deleted information concerned how the two men who formed the group either left or were forced out of it. Take a look at this discussion on my talk page, if you want the justification in his words. I urged him on his own talk page to edit the original article, if it omitted important information. The problem with a merge here is that I can't find any sources on the internet, even unusable ones, that verify Mtguild's account of how the group's founders left. Policy states that when it comes to controversial information, the burden of proof lies with the editor arguing to keep it. Accordingly, I can't see adding his account to Musical Theatre Guild. And obviously, an article can't exist when its author has admitted its only purpose is to provide a second point of view of a topic already covered in its own article.--Djrobgordon 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite a hornets nest isnt it. Whatever is decided via AfD will cause problems for someone associated with this guild. After reading the discussion you pointed me at - I come to the conclusion that an edit war may start on this article. This guild does not seem very famous outside LA so really we have to question is either article worthy of a place on wikipedia. Im coming to the conclusion that it is not and this might be better suited on a personal website which would be harder to be vandalised. --PrincessBrat 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's what happened. User:Mtguild wrote the article Musical Theatre Guild. Another editor removed some material from that article which Mtguild thought was important, and rather than re-insert it, he wrote this response article (It appears that Mtguild is one of the "Founders" in question. The deleted information concerned how the two men who formed the group either left or were forced out of it. Take a look at this discussion on my talk page, if you want the justification in his words. I urged him on his own talk page to edit the original article, if it omitted important information. The problem with a merge here is that I can't find any sources on the internet, even unusable ones, that verify Mtguild's account of how the group's founders left. Policy states that when it comes to controversial information, the burden of proof lies with the editor arguing to keep it. Accordingly, I can't see adding his account to Musical Theatre Guild. And obviously, an article can't exist when its author has admitted its only purpose is to provide a second point of view of a topic already covered in its own article.--Djrobgordon 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sources are provided when this AfD closes. If this group is indeed notable there will be sources forthcoming and we won't have to rely on first-hand research by someone involved with the group to give us the details. Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable. WP is not a place for first-person accounts, sorry. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- merge We usually merge different point of view, we dont make two articles, as the author suggests, or delete one of the sides, as some others have suggested. DGG 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My concern is that, without sources, merging the information will result in an unsourced weasel section; something like "Some say the founders of the Musical Theater Group were unjustly ousted..."--Djrobgordon 03:31, 5 March 2007 (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.
