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. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BroadwayWorld[edit]

BroadwayWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

After cleaning up spamming across wikipedia of links to this site, I noticed the article to the site itself was recently written by the person who spread the links. I prodded the article with the following reason: "Fails to meet WP:WEB. Article of a highly commercial website created by a single-purpose account with the intent on promoting the website. The website has not recieved significant third-party coverage in the news, on the web, or in scholarly journals; nor has it won any major awards or is distributed via a major third-party source."

The main criteria for inclusion is discussion of the website in major independant sources. I can not find any such discussion of this site other than simple name-dropping. I don't really see how the article can be cleaned up and turned encyclopedic since the result would be bare-bones and only contain some statistics about the site. Themfromspace (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As previously mentioned to Themfromspace:
I strongly believe my inclusions of links from the BroadwayWorld database are NOT spam. It is a unique resource for theatre, unlike any other database (IMDB, IBDB, etc.) and contains signficant amount of the individual's information. The links are desirable additions to WP articles. Please follow-up with me.
The pages from BroadwayWorld contain no information that could be (or already is) included within the articles themselves. Unless there is information that is impossible to transfer to the articles without violating copyright then the pages should not be linked to. Themfromspace (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
BroadwayWorld has their own newsdesk, and thus their own articles, compile credits from around the world in their database (which aren't available anywhere else) and works hand-in-hand with the people themselves to include other information, resumes, headshots and other information. I believe they also associate their videos and interviews with their database entries. Also, they have an extensive amount of their own photographs. None of that can be included on WP.
Wouldn't all the data on IMDB and IBDB go against your aforementioned comment? All of that data "could" be included within the articles themselves. Again, their site is rapidly becoming the major resource for theatre-related credits, photos, articles, yada yada for people.
I have updated the original page (which already had received some updates by other WP users) to try to add some outside references to the site. In addition, BroadwayWorld pages are heavily cited as resources by many other people like me trying to update WP. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive357#Link_spamming_-_broadwayworld.com Theatrefan2007 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the merits or lack thereof of the article in question in relation to policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are individual references and links to indicate the Notability and Verifiability of BroadwayWorld.
  • Website traffic comparions of BroadwayWorld vs the other major theatre websites Playbill, Broadway.com and TheatreMania

Theatrefan2007 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand the meaning of notability. I beg to differ with the idea that a website must be "discussed" to be notable. If other sources utilize the site and/or reference it, it's implied notability.
On a somewhat related note, they just put up an exclusive video of backstage at the Broadway musical RENT (soon to be closing.) The cast were given cameras for BroadwayWorld. I think it's a given that not reputable websites would not have that ability. http://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.cfm?colid=31749&a=on
I think the links I provided, along with the arguments made [here] clearly show that the site is Verifiable.
I'm not sure how much more examples you could come up with for a site.
Please tell me what more needs to be shown to state this is a reliable, notable website and thus should not have its article deleted.
I've fixed the LA Times link. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times link doesn't discuss the website either. You're just proving the existance of the website through linking articles that cite it. The articles have to be about the site itself! From the general notability guideline: the sources must "address the subject directly in detail" and also "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". From the Notability guidelines for websites: the content (broadwayworld.com) must be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". None of the sources you provided are examples of a source where the website is the subject. For example, the subject of the first Variety article is how movie companies are putting more of their content on the web. In my opinion, nothing can be done to show that this is a notable website because it is NOT. Themfromspace (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully some other folks will weigh in on this topic as well. Theatrefan2007 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BroadwayWorld is a completely reputable website that is entitled to its own entry on Wikipedia. Not only is it a news site, with a database of theatre history, it is also responsible for original content that is not like anything else on the web for theatre lovers. For those admins who take issue, I refer you to their show previews, and interviews with casts and special content made only for the site. In my opinion, it's Wikipedia's job to allow a person with a broad interest, in this case theatre, to find endless information to places that they may want to know about. I see absolutely no reason why allowing this page to exist causes an issue for anyone.

And I don't believe that saying "In my opinion, nothing can be done to show that this is a notable website because it is NOT. Themfromspace (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)" is helping anyone. Something that is notable to one person may not be to you, which is why I think more people than you or I need to look at the site, and the links that were given in reference, and come to an overall opinion, not that of just one person. It's one of the great things about Wikipedia.(204.56.6.51 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And if there is still an issues, will somebody please tell me why entries for places such as the Internet Broadway Database are still intact? Or lead me to where it's notability was verified? Thanks. (204.56.6.51 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StrongSpeedy Delete this non notable spammer as G11. Warned for COI too. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody even reading any of the sources? I'd be happy if someone would give a good/thoughtful response. (204.56.6.51 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How about this. Yes people are reaind the sources. Even giving them thought AND trying to find better ones without success. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People will get around to looking at the article and the AfD in there own time. If appropriate an admin will relist the AfD when the time comes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: WikiScrubber - I cannot see any reason why this article would fall under the criteria for Speedy Delete Theatrefan2007 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please provide me some specific examples of what WOULD work to get this article legit? Thanks! Theatrefan2007 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (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.
More