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. I am invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. While the !votes are pretty much tied the weight of argument, especially the detailed analyses of sources near the bottom, is so strong that I can't call it anything other than a delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actors of the World[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor, defunct Off-Off-Broadway theatre company with few productions, none of them notable, that later relocated to London and closed down after two further seasons. Fails GNG/NORG. (The related article Marco Aponte is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Aponte.) Sam Sailor 07:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has existed since 2008. Their first production in New York was a US premiere. Their playwriting contest was won by prominent authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete I co-founded this company years ago. We closed after seven years. We would appreciate if you could please delete the page. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoaponte (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a reason to justify deletion? The company existed, and -- at least from the information in the article -- it appears to have been reasonably notable. Is the information incorrect? If so, you can note on the article talk page what you believe needs to fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a violation of privacy in the text, Marcoaponte, by all means point it out. Yet, it's not even a WP:BLP. I'm afraid the decision to keep it or delete it will be taken by consensus on tha basis of policy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that it passes the notability requirements, especially in that it won legitimate awards. I have not seen a convincing argument why it should be deleted. Simply being "defunct" is not a reason to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it should be deleted, because the company is defunct. It should be deleted pursuant to policy, WP:DEL8, because it fails the notability guidelines. Care to present the significant coverage in reliable sources? Sam Sailor 22:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An off-off-Broadway company which won two Latino ACE awards is notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only, (a) they did not win two New York Latin ACE Awards, the director won one. I have resurrected the primary source from the Web.Archive, it lists I guess between 50 and 100 people who received the award that year. Now we just need a third-party reference that talks about Francisco Bustamante (not this Francisco) receiving the honour. Currently, it is unsourced that Marco Aponte was nominated, and I can not find a source. Anybody else can?
And (b), neither 1 nor 2 New York Latin ACE Awards confers notability, it is an assertion based on opinion, not on relevant guidelines. Sam Sailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, have any sources been found to base a keep !vote on? Sam Sailor 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closed as keep but relisting after discussion on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep since subject was indeed once notable. Curtain calls. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Who said subject ever was notable? Looking at the article history, this SPA PROMO piece never was sourced to verify notability. Quoting WP:NTEMP is a mere WP:ASSERTN argument. But do bring on the sources required and we'll have a look at them. I provide numerous alt. searches below for convenience. Sam Sailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have added one further citation to a review of the company's 2003 production of Manhatitlán as well as a link to a newsletter (.pdf) from the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors that mentions the group. An assessment of the current sourcing is found below. We still need significant coverage about the company as such, and those opining "keep" are invited to show verifiable evidence of notability. In case someone will argue that the WP:NORG → WP:NBIO loop lands on WP:NBIO, it is still WP:BASIC that should be met. Sam Sailor 11:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.oobr.com/top/volEight/fourteen/DayYou.htm	Review of a 2001 production of a Cabrujas play performed on Pulse Theatre. Scorching. Reviewer is not this John Chatterton.	OOBR, the Off-Off Broadway Review, although non-notable, can be presumed to be reliable for what it's worth.	WP:INHERITORG applies here, the theatre company does not become notable in itself because one of their productions got a short review on a non-notable website.	✘ No
http://www.curtainup.com/fringe2003.html	Short mention of the company's 2003 adaption of a Schwarz-Bart play.	Presumably yes, FWIW, although CurtainUp is not a notable website.	WP:INHERITORG applies again here.	✘ No
https://www.backstage.com/review/manhatitlan/	Yes, another review of the 2003 adaption of Ton Beau Capitaine	Backstage, a solid source	Again, it is a review of a production, it is not an article about the theatre company.	✘ No
http://latinACEawards.org/index-06.html	Archived here	A list of winners of that year's award.		✘ No
http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/projects/2008/making-short-films-in-the-second-language-classroom/	404 again, but can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20120307184039/http://www1.aston.ac.uk/clipp/learning-innovation/project-reports/2008/making-short-films-in-the-second-language-classroom/		Actors of the World is not mentioned. It is a project announcement by the company's founder Marco Aponte.	✘ No
http://www.actorsoftheworld.com/	Company website, domain has expired.	? Archived at e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20120210131738/http://www.actorsoftheworld.com/	?	✘ No
https://camdenfringe.com/	URL to Camden Fringe Festival	?	No mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I yield to the impressive forensic work above and strike off my suggestion. Memories don't cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honourable. And thanks for the kind words. Sam Sailor 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.