Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan Theatre Source

Manhattan Theatre Source

This organization is not notable. The article appears to have been created for the sole purpose of free advertising a small unknown theater company. It is a vanity article.KindSould 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on condition that the article is better sourced to establish notability. Over 11000 non-wiki Google hits and the author is an established Wikipedia editor so I doubt the vanity part. If no examples of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source can be found I'll change it to delete. Let's give this one a chance. MartinDK 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an "illegal" theatre company, an underground non-union, amateur operation which is conducting business under the "cover" of a cafe. This organization is a fire trap, which is in violation of NYC's Building Department and Fire Codes. Google hits mean nothing. The organization is neither notable, nor is it a legitimate professional theater. KindSould 10:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

At 55 seats, it is hardly a theatre at all. KindSould 10:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like I said it needs to be referenced according to WP:N and WP:RS. Otherwise it should be deleted. My problem here is your tone of language and the fact that you are accusing an established editor of creating a vanity article. Such accusations are uncivil unless you have any proof. Also, calling it a fire trap and "non-union" needs to sourced as well in accordance with WP:RS as it is by itself no reason for deletion. Google hits are not entirely irrelevant. Finally, small theaters are not always non-notable. This all boils down to whether reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage can be found. Personal opinions and acccusations that you have not provided any sources for yourself are not reasons for deletion. MartinDK 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I only found out about Manhattan Theater Source when I was visiting New York. It is an interesting place and very note worthy. The owners of the theatre have nothing to do with the article. The article exists because it is part of a larger off-off Broadway project. I agree that the article should be expanded on. The accusation that this is a vanity article is 100% unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miskatonic (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I appologize for my misuse of the term vanity article. I did not fully understand the meaning of the term. I was not trying to imply that the article was created by the owners of the theater. Merely, that the article appeared to be a form of advertising for the organization. I, too, have been to this theater, and I do not share your enthusiasm for it. The production I saw was an entirely non-union cast. Frankly, I was stunned to find a Wikipedia article on it. Plain and simply, it is not a professional theater. If Wikipedia is to keep such articles, then every community theater in the country warrants its own article. They, too, will have numerous Google hits. That's the nature of producing and advertising plays. It does not make the theater notable within the industry. KindSould 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All the actors and staff I saw at MTS were very professional. It may not be a Broadway but it is a professional theater. A lot of the people that I saw at MTS I have actually seen in other productions, Shows like Law and Order and even films. There actually was an Off-Off Broadway section/project of the Wikipedia that MTS belongs to. If anything the Off-Off Broadway page is one huge ad. Miskatonic 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but needs more sources. --Phoenix (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)