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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthony Bean Community Theater[edit]

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

Article's subject fails to meet the notability guidelines as per WP:ORG. References consist only of web pages, some of them doing no more than associating the organization with notable events (e.g. Hurricane Katrina— notability is not inheritable) and others containing no actual information about the organization. Web pages are sources, but they are poor ones at best, and having many poor sources does not compensate for having one good one, which this article still lacks after five years. I suspect that the article was written by members of this organization, and therefore there is a conflict of interest and dubious claim to having a neutral point of view. KDS4444^Talk 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, one of the references is a write-up blog about a show the company did. The show may or may not be notable, but the fact that this particular theater company produced it does not make the company notable-- the reference belongs in an article about the play, not about the theater group (or else every high school production of Shakespeare would warrant a Wikipedia article). KDS4444^Talk 23:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another link citation is dead.
The next link citation is to an actual public blog not run by the theater group, but the blog's home page indicates that its reach is only greater New Orleans-- that makes this a local news cite, not a regional or national one. Fails notability requirement on those grounds. KDS4444^Talk 00:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last, the final two citations are both to dead links as well. KDS4444^Talk 00:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Whether a link is live or dead is neither here nor there, the question is whether the source exists, not whether the link is fresh. NOLA.com is the website of the Times-Picayune, the main newspaper of NO. Those two cites in the footnotes are keepers, at a glance, even if one is marked as "blog" it's actually supplemental coverage by a newspaper reporter. Community landmark = keep. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment See my third bulleted comment above. The Times-Picayune is a city newspaper, not a regional or national one-- therefore any citations to it cannot count towards establishing notability. And there really is nothing else. KDS4444^Talk 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it really true that an article in a "city newspaper" doesn't confer notability? Do we have a list of which publications are "city" and which are "regional"? If the Times-Picayune isn't regional, does Louisiana have a regional paper? I'm not weighing in one way or another on specific notability in this case, but I'm concerned by your interpretation of notability requirements. squibix (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Let me reiterate, and refer to WP:ORG as I do:

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources."

Neither of these things seems to be the case here: the scope of this group's activities is certainly not national or international. Neither can their activities be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. If those are the criteria, then it is not possible to argue that it has met them. KDS4444^Talk 05:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Another point: while I agree that community landmarks should be kept, I am not sure that the previous editor understands that this is NOT a "landmark" but rather an organization-- the organization happens to have a physical headquarters and mailing address, but these in and of them selves are not landmarks. KDS4444^Talk 09:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 11:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - In accordance with WP:ORG requirements: not national scope; nor sufficiently documented by independent sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG. Described by the NYT in 2011 as "an 11-year-old institution",[1] lost its Edward Wisner Donation[2] in 2011,[3] is "something of a godsend to New Orleans theater", [4] and gets a brief mention in the 2010 Mayor's Summer Youth Program.[5] The online sources aren't numerous, but I believe that this organisation is well established and likely notable. -- Trevj (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.