Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle Productions

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Productions

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

Promotional tone, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Cited references are largely to blogs or other sources of questionable reliability. The one reliable source referenced (The Guardian) does not mention the subject of the article. Challenged prod. RadioFan (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Guardian refernce is an abstract of the report, that Oracle is Mentioned in.

New City - Is a publication in Chicago. It is linked form this page to its page. Newcity Promotional tone - I would like to see what is cited as an example of this. I do not see promotional language anywhere in this article. This statement: "Cited references are largely to blogs or other sources of questionable reliability." - Is unsupported. Cited references are largely to printed publications.(User talk:brad.little)

Comment The mission statement sounding 2nd paragraph gave the article a very promotional tone but that has been edited out since the article was nominated so that concern has been addressed.

—Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources are added after a good faith search for them. Nimuaq (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new city reference appears to be a reasonable one (though you'll forgive my confusion as new city's website doesn't give the impression of a professional publication) as does centerstagechicago.com as it's written by the Sun-Times. TimeOut is a free entertainment publication that is seen in many large cities and Backstage looks to be a trade publication so they seem reasonable as well. However www.chicagostagereview.com, http://newcitystage.com (is it related to NewCity?, and www.gapersblock.com look to be self published websites or blogs, not printed publications. Its not clear what chicagocritic.com is, could be a small local free paper, could be a self published blog of sorts. It is the responsibility of the editor using it as a reference to clarify these source's reliability however. The reliability of the Jeff Awards is also unclear, the awards lack a Wikipedia article so its hard to tell if the awards themselves are notable. Of the references provided, each, with the exception of the Guardian one, are about individual productions, rather than production company which is the subject of this article. While that is probably okay in determining the notability of a theater company I bring it up here for further discussion. In summary, this article can probably meet notability guidelines but questions remain about some of the references.--RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joseph Jefferson Awards (Jeff Awards) has an article in Wikipedia and the cited reference is the list of nominees article on the official website. (For more sources on the awards: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). newcitystage.com is indeed a Newcity website: [1] and for gapersblock.com, see Gapers Block (webzine). chicagostagereview.com is a self published websites, but per WP:SELFPUBLISHED which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", it might still be reliable for this review, however I cant find the sources for that one on the web. chicagocritic.com is a self published website which I cant find any sources to suggest the author has written on reliable third-party sources. In any case, these two sources are currently replaced from the article.

I acknowledge that it is the responsibility of the editor using it as a reference to clarify these source's reliability. However, it is also the nominator's responsibility to check for WP:BEFORE which states "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist" and "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Nimuaq (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches on the article title produce news articles largely about this theater company's unused space being used for a haunted house once a year. Or the common words "Oracle" and "Productions" being next to one other but in an unrelated context. That didn't produce much confidence in sources existing. The ones produced by this AFD are fine but are not ones that are going to be produced by a good faith attempt.--RadioFan (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at a few of the citations, there is little independent about the company, mostly it seems like about the actual plays - I didn't find the link to the award but if they have won one I am very weak keep, or a no consensus - default to keep. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (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.