Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan Theatre Source

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 Keep per consensus and article's improvement. Sources added by User:Serpent's Choice. diff. PeaceNT 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan Theatre Source

This organization is not notable. The article appears to have been created for the sole purpose of free advertising a small unknown theater company. It is a vanity article.KindSould 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on condition that the article is better sourced to establish notability. Over 11000 non-wiki Google hits and the author is an established Wikipedia editor so I doubt the vanity part. If no examples of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source can be found I'll change it to delete. Let's give this one a chance. MartinDK 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an "illegal" theatre company, an underground non-union, amateur operation which is conducting business under the "cover" of a cafe. This organization is a fire trap, which is in violation of NYC's Building Department and Fire Codes. Google hits mean nothing. The organization is neither notable, nor is it a legitimate professional theater. KindSould 10:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

At 55 seats, it is hardly a theatre at all. KindSould 10:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like I said it needs to be referenced according to WP:N and WP:RS. Otherwise it should be deleted. My problem here is your tone of language and the fact that you are accusing an established editor of creating a vanity article. Such accusations are uncivil unless you have any proof. Also, calling it a fire trap and "non-union" needs to sourced as well in accordance with WP:RS as it is by itself no reason for deletion. Google hits are not entirely irrelevant. Finally, small theaters are not always non-notable. This all boils down to whether reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage can be found. Personal opinions and acccusations that you have not provided any sources for yourself are not reasons for deletion. MartinDK 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I only found out about Manhattan Theater Source when I was visiting New York. It is an interesting place and very note worthy. The owners of the theatre have nothing to do with the article. The article exists because it is part of a larger off-off Broadway project. I agree that the article should be expanded on. The accusation that this is a vanity article is 100% unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miskatonic (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I appologize for my misuse of the term vanity article. I did not fully understand the meaning of the term. I was not trying to imply that the article was created by the owners of the theater. Merely, that the article appeared to be a form of advertising for the organization. I, too, have been to this theater, and I do not share your enthusiasm for it. The production I saw was an entirely non-union cast. Frankly, I was stunned to find a Wikipedia article on it. Plain and simply, it is not a professional theater. If Wikipedia is to keep such articles, then every community theater in the country warrants its own article. They, too, will have numerous Google hits. That's the nature of producing and advertising plays. It does not make the theater notable within the industry. KindSould 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All the actors and staff I saw at MTS were very professional. It may not be a Broadway but it is a professional theater. A lot of the people that I saw at MTS I have actually seen in other productions, Shows like Law and Order and even films. There actually was an Off-Off Broadway section/project of the Wikipedia that MTS belongs to. If anything the Off-Off Broadway page is one huge ad. Miskatonic 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but needs more sources. --Phoenix (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably well established off-off venue. I added a couple of references to reviews that addressed the venue. The company website indicates it had a mention in the New York Times in 2003, but I was unable to locate that. However, I am having difficulty reconciling the nominator's comments with available information. The venue certainly appears to be a legitimate professional theatre and has in fact hosted Equity Showcase productions (that is, productions with union actors), although it does not do so exclusively. In an effort to assume good faith, perhaps the nominator has reliable sources that I was unable to locate? Serpent's Choice 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Reliable sources for what? The fact that it is not-notable? I think you've got that backwards. It is not my responsibility to show that it is not notable. The article should demonstrate why it is notable. There are well over 100 Off-Off Broadway Theatres in NYC, why is this venue notable? Why should there be an article on this theatre as opposed to the others? Has it won any awards? Have any of the plays it originally produced been published? How many of its productions moved up the ladder to Off Broadway Theatres? These are legitimate criteria for notability of an Off-Off Broadway theatre. Is it even a member of the Alliance of Resident Theatres of New York? That might give it some legitimacy.

There also seems to be some confusion about Equity Showcases here. A showcase contract is awarded to a Non-Union theatre so that union actors can appear on a one production basis, under very tight restrictions. (Including no pay, other than transportation reimbursement.) It's a waiver of sorts. Showcases are mixed casts of Union & Non-Union Actors. An occassional Union Showcase does not make the theatre professional. Most legit Off-Off Broadway theatres run full Equity small theatre contract runs in addition to occassional showcases. This theatre appears to be running a majority of non-union productions, with an occassional showcase. The fact that has been mentioned in the NY Times only once, proves that it is not notable. The Times, as a matter of policy, does not review amateur productions. Please, note that my use of the would "amateur" is not meant to be derogatory. This the legitimate theatre term for non-union productions. When a company, such as this, applies for rights to a play - it goes through amateur leasing. I see nothing notable about this venue. If this article is kept then all Off-Off Broadway theatres should be entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Likewise, all community theatres should recieve their own articles. (as long as they have enough google hits, right?) KindSould 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment When you make claims like the theatre being a "fire trap" then you need to provide reliable sources. Also, like I said, that is in no way a reason for deletion nor is the fact that this is a small theatre. The only criteria that applies here is that it must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source. Please read WP:N. Notability requirements are not as strict as you think they are, there is no requirement that a theatre must have a certain number of seats etc. As for the other theatres they too could have articles here if they meet WP:N og in other words if they have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. If not, then they don't belong here. It's really not that complicated and arguments like "if x stays then y and z must exist too so we better delete x" or "this place is a fire trap and non-union" are not relevant here. As for Google hits no they don't assert notability but when I get 11000 hits that do not appear to be simply links to blogs etc. then I am not simply going to say that no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources exists. MartinDK 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have further updated the article to include additional sources, including an award-winning ten-minute play debuted at the Source as well as the premiere of the first play by a national best-selling author. There has actually been quite a bit of coverage of this venue and its productions. On the other hand, there is no coverage in reliable sources that supports claims that this is "illegal", a "fire trap", or "in violation of [the] ... Fire Code", all of which would require appropriate sources to be considered here. Serpent's Choice 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, and continue improving with additional references and sources supporting notabilityNYTheaterHistorian 09:19, 7 May 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.