Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Broadway

• I don't normally respond to comments on articles I've nominated for deletion but I want to assure anyone reading this that I have read, multiple times, all of the documents Vyeh is quoting from. In essence the editor is suggesting that there are two sources a & b which prove notability. I suggest neither of these sources are independent (a is a rehashed press release and b is an interview) and further a's topic is not the production company but a play and lacks significance to boot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making an exception and responding, User:Barkeep49. I accept that you have read the documents multiple times. I will focus on the independence of the sources and on the significance of source "a."

For source "a," I believe the issue of independence is whether anyone can put in a press release (a German example) or whether there is a person independent of the generator of the press release, who exercise independent judgment about the press release. Broadway World names 4 individuals as "BWW News Desk": Jessica Khan, Alexa Criscitiello, Julie Musbac, Danielle Ashley. Barkeep's word "rehashed" suggests that one of these individuals edited the press release. The requirement for independence is met if this individual has no personal nor financial relationship to All Things Broadway or Eliyahu Kheel. In the absence of any evidence, this is the proper assumption.

For the significance of source "a,"

• GNG (see the full quote above) requires the topic be addressed 'directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' It says that 'significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.' I believe that a review of the source, particularly the six sentence 4th paragraph shows directness and detail and is more than a trivial mention.
• NCORP has a long section about significance. I quoted the first sentence above. I submit that the 4th paragraph of the source is an "overview" and "description" of All Things Broadway.

For source "b," there is a 80 word, five sentence introduction before the Q and A, generated by the interviewer, not the subject. I used that introduction to support the assertion that Eliyahu Kheel is the founder of All Things Broadway. It could also be used to support the lede (except for the number of members; since source "b" is a year older than source "a," I used the number from source "a." I probably would have used source "b" in the lede, when I continued working on the article.) I submit there is no evidence that the introductory paragraph was written by Eliyahu Kheel or anyone with a personal or financial relationship to All Things Broadway.

I appreciate that Barkeep49 made an exception to respond to my comment. I had absolutely no intention of creating any doubt that he/she had read GNG and NCORP many times. He/she is correct that I am asserting the two sources support notability. I don't have the burden of showing that the two sources "prove" notability. Notablity is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article:

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the

find sources

for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are

not a final draft

, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

I had only begun to search for reliable sources. I wrote an initial draft of the article from the sources I found. The time I would have spent looking for additional sources for All Things Considered is being consumed defending the article in this AfD. Wikipedia, not me, "strongly" encourages editors to attempt to find sources before "nominating an article for deletion" or offering "an opinion based on notability." I'm assuming Wikipedia is addressing editors offering a negative opinion on notability. If anyone looks for sources, I would appreciate a report, here or on the article's talk page, so I don't have to repeat the searches.

Please note that I have done more than "merely asserting unspecified sources exist." I wasn't expecting an AfD, but I included a note in the edit summary to new page patrollers about a post in the article talk page citing WEBCRIT ("content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"), on which I was basing notability.

I've already quoted from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Considerations (mention reservations to article creator or on article talk page or add cleanup template instead of taking recently created article to AfD).

I am grateful that Barkeep49 has focused the AfD discussion on the independence and significance of source "a" and on the independence of source "b." On those three issues, I've stated my evidence. Note that the burden of proof is on the nominator and editors favoring removal to attempt to find sources and to "consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I respect the work Barkeep49 does for Wikipedia. While I appreciate his/her opinion on independence and significance, my main work has been on two articles, where there was a lack of platinum grade sources. The challenge has been to make editorial judgments about sources. While there have been easy decisions, there have also been decisions requiring a lot of research and thought. As an editor who has had to find sources, my opinion is that the two sources I found are sufficient to "suggest" notability and that they are the tip of the iceberg. Digging deeper will show how big the iceberg is. I hope Barkeep49 respects my opinion. Although our opinions differ, we are each trying to improve Wikipedia. I believe that the evidence supports my opinion and the combination of the recently created status of All Things Broadway and the emphasis of "existence" rather than "presence" creates an almost overwhelming presumption for retaining All Things Broadway. Thank you for your attention. Vyeh (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete changed to strong delete, see my response to Vyeh below Despite the many paragraphs above, I don't see these sources making this subject notable. I searched around on Google, and it didn't bring up much that I think shows the subject to be notable. The group definitely exists, and has a significant following, but I don't believe that constitutes notability. There are a lot of articles about it, although mostly from small blog sites. Vermont (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: thank you! "... a lot of articles about it ..." Is it possible to post the URL's of the articles? I'm primarily interested in the ones not from the small blog sites (potential sources), but blogs might lead to sources. Thank you in advance! Vyeh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vyeh, sure! [1], [2], [3]. There's also a bit of forum posting and threads online about Island Song, which seems to be the main thing the community did that garnered attention. Vermont (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont, I've incorporated your first two URL's into the article. The first source, Show-Score, has a WP page. The second source is written by an expert in musical theatre. There is an exception in RS for blogs written by experts. (I'll spare you a paragraph quote!) Two of his books, including a two volume encyclopedia on musical theater, are used as sources in WP. Barkeep49 might want to apply his GNG and NCORP analysis to those sources. (I'm not being sarcastic. I never hoped to have collaboration on All Things Broadway)

The third URL happens to use the words "all things Broadway" in the lead post of a 250+ post thread. If you found the FB group in the thread, could you give me the post number?

Thank you so much! It was such a surprise and a joy to click on your first two URL's and realize that they are sources. Vyeh (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last night, I found out User:DGG works in the deletion area, either rescuing articles or helping them out the door. He informed me that FB groups are disfavored. He urged me to rewrite the article as a theatre company. I've done so. Vyeh (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After the rewrite, I'm still in favor of deletion. Actually, now that I think of it as a theater company, it's not notable at all. It's preformed less than a dozen times, is mostly crowdfunded from the Facebook group (it isn't a real theater company), and when it did preform received only mild coverage in non-significant sources focusing on the fact it's connected to a Facebook group. Vermont (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Vermont: Both GNG and NCORG apply "significant" to coverage, not to a source. They exclude "trivial" coverage. WEBCRIT says, "... non-trivial published works whose source ...", which clearly shows the significant/trivial criteria does not apply to the source. I'm confused about "mild." Could you clarify what you mean?

As a theatre company, it has performed three times in 6 months. I think that demonstrates they are for real.

As for crowd-funding from FB members, one of the sources you provided (an expert who has written a two volume encyclopedia of musical theatre) high-lighted the crowd-funding as the wave of the future. I think the crowd-funding makes the theatre company more, not less, notable.

The sources that talk about performances did not focus on the connection to the FB group. Source "a" (BW World): 1st paragraph: "Island Song." 2nd para.: cast and crew. 3rd para.: place, time and ticket price. Last para.: FB group. Source "b" (BW Wiz) was written six months before the first performance, so it is not covered by your assertion. The two sources you provided: SS ("c") mentions ATB as a FB group in the first sentence. The remaining three sentences in the intro talk about the show. Of the five questions, two are about the show, one is about Julian's background, one is about Julian's Broadway show plans and only on is about the FB group. The expert blog ("d"): 1st para.: funding a new musical is daunting. 2nd para.:possibility of crowd-funding as solution. 3rd para.: description of people involved in "Island Song." 4th para.: description of "Island Song." 5th para.: Time, place and ticket prices. The FB group is mentioned in only the first two paragraphs, as the source of funding and as the origin of the theatre company. The additional source: CG ("e"): 1st para.: time, place and ticket prices. 2nd para. 1st sentence: describes FB group. 2nd sentence: describes show.

Vermont, I've appreciated your and Barkeep49 comments during this AfD. The article has improved.

As a FB group, All Things Broadway wasn't very interesting. The only reason there were multiple sources was because of its activities outside chat space. As the wave of the future, it is more interesting. Hence, there are sources which meet GNG and NCORG.

So far, Barkeep49 has only expressed an opinion about "a" and "b". According to the welcome box above the edit area, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." My argument to the nominator's assertion is that "a" is not independent is that there is no evidence of a financial or personal connection between Eliyahu Kheel, the founder of the theatre company and the individuals of the "BWW News Desk." The nominator says "further a's topic is not the production company but a play." The title of the source is "All Things Broadway Presents Carner & Gregor's ISLAND SONG at the Davenport Theatre Loft." All Things Broadway is the first three words. I'd say "a's" topic is both the production company and the play. To the nominator's argument that "a" lacks significance, "a" is clearly more than a trivial mention. My argument to the nominator's assertion that "b" is not independent is that there is no evidence of a financial nor personal relationship between Broadway Wiz and Eliyahu Kheel. The nominator has not yet commented on "c," "d" and "e."

If the nominator or anyone else comments on the last day, I ask that I be given 24 hours from the last comment advocating deletion to respond.

Regarding Vermont (whom I've found very helpful in writing the article), I believe that the guidelines base notability on sources. If there are no sources meeting the criteria of the guidelines, then a subject is not notable, regardless of an editor's personal feelings. If there are sources meeting the guidelines, that indicates notability.

I have tried to ally Vermont concerns by pointing out the frequency and reach of the theatre company's productions.

Finally, I've mentioned some procedural issues.

WP:NEXIST requires editors considering deletion to search for sources (which Vermont

did) and to consider the possibility of sources not present in the article. I submit it is possible there are online print reviews (particularly "Island Song") that a diligent editor can find. For another article I've been working on, I've purchased books and CD's and ordered a DVD from the library.

For the substantive and procedural reasons I've mentioned, the only proper action at this time is to Keep the article. Barkeep49 or Vermont can renominate the article for deletion in 3 months. Vyeh (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Vyeh (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Your reasons are not substantive. Nor can you close an AfD, as you imply by saying, "Barkeep49 or Vermont can renominate the article for deletion in 3 months." Your arguments are, in my opinion, not supported or well-founded; they're just extremely long.

Anyways, to why I think it should be deleted:

The sources, although they may be reliable, are not nearly considered significant coverage. Since being rebranded from a Facebook group to a theater company by the means of it's Wikipedia article, I've been even more convinced in this subject being not notable. There really aren't any reliable references that push this entity over the line of

WP:42

/GNG. I'll now proceed to go over each source, which is all that has been found in terms of researching All Things Broadway.

1. From the BWW News Desk. The article is clearly an advertisement for Island Song, and does little more than confirm it's existence, ticket prices, and that it's being hosted by All Things Broadway, which it describes by saying "All Things Broadway is a Facebook group with over 62,000 members..." Notice there is no mention of it being a theater company, as it isn't primarily a theater company. This source is used to support the lead sentence, which refers to All Things Broadway as a theater company, which is not mentioned in this reference.

2. Show-score.com interview with Julian Mendoza. Starts out by saying "The Facebook group All Things Broadway..." (again, not referred to as a theater company). After this, it's simply a personal interview about Mendoza's experiences in theater and with the Facebook group. Doesn't confer notability.

3. Listing for their "Miscast" event, again referring to All Things Broadway as a Facebook group, and does little more than advertise a bit and give a link to their website. Doesn't confer notability.

4. markrobinsonwrites.com article. This article hints at possible future notability, referring to All Things Broadway as,"a momentum-building producing organization and theatre company that has produced and performed concerts..." I see this not as evidence of notability but evidence of growing numbers and popularity which will perhaps someday mean notability. It focuses on the crowdfunding which allowed two performances of Island Song. This is not notability; crowdfunding may be "the wave of the future" (Vyeh, above) but it does not mean anyone who engages in crowdfunding is notable. If All Things Broadway perhaps had an original idea in this sense that made them notable, I would expect more than a few non-significant blog posts. Reading this post, it definitely does not seem like an independent, secondary source. It's full of puffery and ends the article with an advertisement of how to buy tickets, when the shows are, and ticket prices.

5. Simply a link to the Island Song project which does little more than confirm its existence.

6. Interview with the founder of the All Things Broadway Facebook group, Eliyahu Kheel. It does not, by any means, confer notability. It simply asks Kheel a few questions, and gives a link to his website. (which is currently a blank HTML document)

Overall:

There are 6 references, two of which are interviews (not RS's/good for encyclopedic entries), two are listings for shows (merely confirms existence), one is a link to the Island Song project which, again, only confirms existence, and the last is a blog post that hints at possible notability in the future.

I'll note that All Things Broadway is primarily a Facebook group, although is also (and less importantly, as it's small and definitely not-notable) a theater company, per their website.

After doing this research, I see no reason to keep this article in mainspace. Perhaps it could be draftified or userfied until a date when it may be notable in the future, or outright deleted. I support any option that removes it from the mainspace, as it is currently not a notable entity. I've struck my comments above as I am now in favor of strong delete or otherwise removal from mainspace. Vermont (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:RS coverage. Bradv 22:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Extremely poor non-independent sourcing, as Bradv sums up nicely. Also wayyyy too much text for an AfD.
  talk) 23:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - as not notable. Operator873^talkconnect 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Vermont, I wasn't closing the AfD. I was proposing (see the box above the edit area) "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion." Give me and other editors interested in the article 3 months to find additional sources. As I've already quoted, there is a guideline against putting a recently created article that can survive speedy deletion (a "hopeless" case) into AfD. For another article I'm working on, I've bought books and CD's. There is another Wikipedia guideline, which I've quoted, that says that initially, you and other editors interested in deletion should consider that good sources exist, even if they aren't present in an article. After awhile, I and other editors interested in retention have to find the sources if notability is challenged. I wasn't casting another vote. I was just high-lighting the word "keep". Anyway, the guidelines for AfD says the decision isn't based on counting votes. The box above the edit area says, "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The red triangle on the summation of my long arguments is improper because it is commenting on me rather than on the merits of the discussion.

WP:42

says, This is NOT a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in cases of inconsistency with this page. (their bold). Every link and quote I have made is to a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

I value your opinion. While we can disagree on whether All Things Broadway is notable, I believe you go too far in asserting that my arguments are not "supported." I have cited Wikipedia policy and guidelines, providing links and quotes, following the guideline in the box above the edit area, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." The links and quotes, along with my asserted facts, are the foundation of my arguments. I suggest that my arguments are "well-founded." I've never asserted that either your arguments nor the arguments of Barkeep49 were not well-founded. I've only suggested that my arguments should be given more weight.

I am puzzled at how emphasizing one aspect rather than another can affect your evaluation of notability. l added an additional source. That should not reduce notability.

Addressing your comments:

1. BWW News Desk says in the fourth paragraph, fifth sentence, "Now expanded into a theatre company based in Manhattan, ..." That is a mention of a theatre company. The lead sentence of the article is "All Things Broadway is a theatre company based in New York City, New York."

2. Show-Score.com. Both NCORP and GNG have the essentially the same requirements for a source used to support notability: (1) significant coverage, (2) reliable and (3) independent of the subject. I assert that Show-Score.com meets these requirements. I used the source for (1) the songs that Julian Mendoza was singing, (2) that the FB group included theatre fans and (3) that Eliyahu Kheel founded the FB group.

3. Listing for Miscast. I think you are questioning "significance." The requirement is sometimes stated as "non-trivial," which I think it meets. I used it for "On April 3, 2018, it performed "Miscast" at the Laurie Beechman Theatre." I also used it for "Currently it is the largest Facebook group."

4. markrobinsonwrites.com. You mentioned that it doesn't seem "independent, secondary." There is no evidence of a financial nor personal relationship between Mark Robinson and Eliyahu Kheel. The source is clearly not primary nor tertiary. You also mention "non-significant." With five long paragraphs devoted to Island Song, and All Things Broadway, the coverage is significant.

5. Island Song project. I used it to support that the musical was "about five New Yorkers." The source starts a summary of the musical with "Five New Yorkers." I haven't used it in this discussion to support notability.

6. Interview with Eliyahu Kheel. I am asserting that it is significant coverage, reliable and independent. I use the introductory material (which negates "simply") to support "Eliyahu Kheel founded the group" and Eliyahu Kheel's answers to support "He formed the group because his friends were annoyed with his up to ten daily Broadway postings, never expected it to grow beyond a hundred members and is currently reaching out to the professional Broadway community."

Interviews are usable in Wikipedia for quotes and for non-contentious facts, e.g. the songs Julian Mendoza sang. Reliability is a function of the publisher. E.g. if the New York Times publishes an interview, it can be used to support a quote by the interviewee.

On listings, BWW News Desk is not a listing. Its four paragraphs describe the show, the cast, time, place, ticket price, the FB group and the theatre company. I used the listing for Miscast to confirm existence and to support that All Things Broadway is the largest FB group. I use the link to the Island Source project for a summary of Island Song. The blog post is permitted under the expert exception and meets the requirements for a source supporting notability: significant coverage, reliable and independent of the subject. The All Things Broadway website says "All Things Broadway has also recently expanded into a theatre company performing at the 54 Below, the Laurie Beechman Theatre and the musical Island Song at the Davenport Theatre Loft." It has produced three shows in 6 months, which is prolific for a theatre company. Notability is based on sources, not on an editor's assessment of a subject's importance.

We have discussed five sources. Wikipedia policy says that we should consider additional sources that may exist. Proponents for retention of an article are given a reasonable time to locate those sources. I've previously quoted those policies. The article was was erroneously referred to AfD. I've quoted the relevant policy governing newly created articles and AfD. While Vermont is entitled to change his opinion after a more thorough examination of the evidence (and I applaud that he searched for sources), I am puzzled at how starting with the theatre company aspect rather than the group aspect would affect his opinion of the entity's notability. In both versions, it is the same entity.

I really (and sincerely) thank Vermont for the attention he has put into All Things Broadway. I'm trying to get another article peer reviewed and there is a backlog. What a luxury to get a review for All Things Broadway at the beginning.

Thank you,

ThatMontrealIP and Operator873 for your comments. Bradv, I've already exhaustively analyzed [[WP:GNG] and gone through the six sources. I disagree with the characterization of four sources as "ads.' Vermont

characterize those sources as two listings (I have argued one is much more), a link and a blog post. Thank you for searching for additional sources.

ThatMontrealIP I've already addressed independence. And I think five sources do not constitute "extremely poor" sourcing. As to the amount of text, Barkeep49

originally only cited NGN and NCORG, forcing me if I wanted the article to remain to address each and every point.

Operator873 The box above the edit area says, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." Vyeh (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vyeh, your comments in this AfD total over 5,000 words thus far. (Yes I ran them through a word counter.) Please read

talk) 21:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment (1) NCORP and the GNG are not separate rules. NCORPis the manner in which the GNG is interpreted when dealing with articles on organizations: it specifies more exactly what we mean by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements . (Actually, in my opinion its provision always applied, and are in general applicable to all uses of the GNG--the guideline was established in order to clarify the rules for articles in a frequently challenged field, where there was special concern that standards were not being met.

(2)More important, the article seems to have now been completely rewritten to make it about the theatre company, not the facebook group (this was at my suggestion--I was asked for advice at a WM-NYC meeting). This means that all judgements based on its initial state need to be reconsidered..

ThatMontrealIP, Bradv

.

I am for the time being not giving an opinion about keeping or deleting. But, Vyeh, please be concise. Most of us discussing here know the rules--your job is to show that the article meets them by explaining why the sources are reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the rewrite it is still lacks independent reliable sourcing to establish notability. The current sources are personal web sites, event announcements , interviews and the like. Not notable.

talk) 01:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I’ll note that ThatMontrealIP, TimTempleton, and Bradv !voted delete after the article was rewritten to focus on the theater company aspect. Vermont (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm that my nomination and defacto !vote of delete stands. When I nominated this article

WP:BEFORE and included in my nomination statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A further note that I don't think there's any basis in policy, guideline, or well respected essay to suggest that any of the users noted above need to reconsider their !votes in order to be considered when someone (hopefully an admin) judges consensus here, regardless of when they !voted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Vyeh, your incessant and massively over-the-top and repetitive walls of text in this discussion are working massively against you. Please stop that, and for future reference, don't repeat this behavior anywhere else on Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously. As it is, the subject seems to be merely an aficionado group that has performed a few times. Insufficiently notable for Wikipedia's purposes, and even scrupulous searching fails to come up with sufficient independent coverage. Perhaps it is possible that this group may become sufficiently notable in a few years (although I doubt it). If you believe that may be possible, you might want to keep a copy of the article somewhere for future reference. I wouldn't count on it though; and it's best just to be graceful and realize that something you have put a lot of energy into does not meet Wikipedia's strict standards. It happens to all of us at one point or another. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 29 September 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.