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. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is not a reliable and not notable news website. Most of the source from WP:PRIMARY. I don't know how this was accepted by AfC. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find significant independent coverage of BroadwayWorld. I see a lot of passing mentions that generally seem to follow this formula: BroadwayWorld gives someone an award, followed by local coverage in the award recipient's local paper mentioning they won a BroadwayWorld award, as well as lots of mentions of BroadwayWorld awards in press releases from the award recipients themselves. This seems to be one of those publicity-generating websites (where they give out awards for the sake of people being able to say that they got an award) but not an actual, respected theater award, such as the Tonys. Other than its awards, I see no coverage of BroadwayWorld at all, except for this one NYTimes article about its message boards.^[1] Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NEWSNOTE, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Levivich (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically has been a press release spigot site disguised with a few spare news articles for the last few years (it's been used as sourcing for a bunch of TV/film articles here, which is troubling in itself). There are much better sites devoted to Broadway news with better content curation out there than this. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Los Angeles Times called it "an indispensable resource" in 2011 [2], and mentions their awards in a 2015 article about actors in a musical [3]. The New York Times had an article about an actress taking on the BroadwayWorld chat board, and BW founder Diamond's response [4], including separating chat boards from the rest of its content, and quotes BroadwayWorld in an article about "second-acting" [5]. Plenty of other newspapers report on BroadwayWorld awards. Variety had a review in 2010 of BroadwayWorld apps iBroadway and the Broadway App (both affiliated with the website) [6]; a 2009 article in the Journal of Cultural Economics used the BroadwayWorld International Database as a source of data; a 2010 article in Theatre Journal quoted several items from BroadwayWorld; and a 2015 article in The Tax Lawyer also referenced it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing my !vote per the excellent legwork by RebeccaGreen (thank you). While I'm still not convinced BroadwayWorld is a reliable source as a publication, I am convinced it has received enough significant coverage from other reliable sources to be notable as an organization. Levivich (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article's contents must be verifiable to readers through sources that are actually cited in the article, not just by sources that exist somewhere. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see it differently: a subject's notability shouldn't depend on the state of its Wikipedia article, and AfD shouldn't require editors to source articles or else have them deleted. There's no need to delete, because any editor troubled by the state of the article can edit it. :-) Levivich (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the LA times reference. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough to meet WP:GNG though article needs some improvement. Orientls (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2019 (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.