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.  Sandstein  07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon at the Mushroom Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Local fringe theater production. A couple of mentions from local sources (reviews, etc.) but nothing substantial that would show that the topic meets WP:RS. Also possible WP:COI issues. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Tribe of Fools, the theater company whose production this is. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both for lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both I don’t understand the conflict of interest part. Anybody who is interested in adding to Wikipedia by definition has a conflict of interest. Anybody who adds to Wikipedia is for the addition not against it. I don’t see how a person who is going to add to Wikipedia would add something that they had no interest in. It makes no sense. BATMAN19892001 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia’s rules on a reliable sources state: “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” And Kinu’s states “A couple of mentions from local sources (reviews, etc.)” one of those “local sources” was “The Philadelphia Inquirer” a news paper that has “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” The Philadelphia Inquirer has a Wikipedia page. So, don’t delete this article. BATMAN19892001 03:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the short answer is that getting a theatre review in a daily doesn't create notability (as defined here). Wikipedia isn't the news, so we don't report on something just because it was covered by a paper. Now, if the production had won a national award and wide coverage, then yes. Otherwise, likely not. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that this play doesn't have the notability of "Cat's" but, it wasn't preformed in a living room either. It is a play that was shown in this year’s Philly fringe and was put on by an up and coming theater troupe in the Philadelphia Theater scene. I don’t understand why this article can’t be Kept. BATMAN19892001 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the extra "Keep" I'm new to this so...yea. Thanks for striking it but, you could have deleted it. Thanks. BATMAN19892001 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both; both fail the general notability guideline because they lack significant coverage  Chzz  ►  04:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just was searching different theater companies in Philadelphia and came across “Spiral Q Puppet Theater”. Armageddon at the Mushroom and Tribe of fools has more appropriate citations from reliable sources and appear in more reliable third-party publications then this troupe and their article wasn’t deleted. Doesn’t that set a precedent? If that Article was found to have enough citations to keep from being deleted then shouldn’t mine? BATMAN19892001 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some more:
Kapoot Clown Theater
The Cabiri (performance troupe)
Circus Amok
Blacklips
Known World Players
I could go on but, I’m sure you understand by now. Just keep it up. BATMAN19892001 05:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not a compelling argument for retention; an article should be able to stand on its own. If other articles don't appear to meet guidelines and policies, then those should be examined more closely and possibly nominated for deletion as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wikipedia has a lot of rules to prevent people from arguing why their articles should not be deleted. Why is that? All I wanted was to write an article that I thought would add to wikipedia. My bad for trying. BATMAN19892001 18:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see any good reason for an article about a play that is currently being staged in Philadelphia, other than for advertising. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just a play but, also the theater troupe in Philadelphia Tribe of Fools who you all want to delete from Wikipedia.69.253.253.34 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How can this item be posted solely for the purposes of advertising when the play Armageddon at the Mushroom Village is closed? Why would anyone waste time advertising a play that is closed? If plays that are closed should be removed from Wikipedia, then please remove all of the Greek tragedies, Shakespeare's works, anything to do with Vaudeville, and Cats. Clearly Armageddon is a legitimate entry categorizing a new work of art, and substatiated by traditional press press^[1][2], blogs^[3][4], and events listings^[5][6][7][8]. The call to delete the entry for Tribe of Fools itself is unfounded and illogical as the company is a legitimate incorporated non-profit ^[9] currently operating in the state of Pennsylvania. If the Internal Revenue Service and The Department of the Treasury are not good enough sources for Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is severely flawed. For more evidence of Tribe of Fools existence and role as a creator of new works of art, please see here^[10] or here ^[11] or here ^[12] or here ^[13] or here ^[14] or here ^[15] or here ^[16] or here ^[17] or here ^[18] or anywhere you care to do you own due diligence and research. These sources proove the company produces theatre which is a topic of of some interest to most learned people ^[19] and although they have not won any major awards they do deserve mention in an encyclopedia ^[20], especially an encyclopedia as egalitarian and collaborative as Wikipedia^[21] as this differs from a meritocracy ^[22], or at least pretends to differ from a meritocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.243.124 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's not about "deserving" anything... it's about whether there is established notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: seems like advertising to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.236.67 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It I heard about this production and actually looked up Tribe Of Fools on Wikipedia because I had never heard of them. I was glad to find them listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.23.118 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deserve has everything to do with it as the definition of deserve means "to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to."^[23]. To be qualified for, you know, though meeting necessary requirements. How do the ample sources I've provided, and more that you'd find on your own if you attempted any amount of due dilligence, fail listing requirements? Please be specific for each reference if you can.
• All right, then show that the article "deserves" to exist by establishing the notability of the subject. As has been mentioned, existence and notability are two different things. Not everything that exists is encyclopedic. "Interesting to some" is not a criterion for notability. Being a non-profit is not a criterion for notability. Press/news releases are not third-party sources and do not constitute a reliable source. Event listings do not indicate notability, just that the show/group exists. A few reviews in which the show is mentioned and is not the primary subject does not indicate that the subject is notable, just that it exists. Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, etc., are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. Please read WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:N, as has been suggested before. P.S.: your overlinking of definitions, etc., in the references section hints at sarcasm and bad faith insulting, and does nothing to legitimize your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I Believe the comment with the “overlinking of definitions, etc., in the references section” was from the Artistic Director of Tribe of Fools He is also new to Wikipedia and I’m sure he didn’t mean to come off sarcastic and insulting. I added the reference section at the end because he added all those references and I thought they should be displayed. He was just giving you what he thought you meant by references and notability. Sorry about the misunderstanding BATMAN19892001 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A play needs a bit more than a review or two to be notable. PS: I don't know what all this junk below is, but I can't see how it is worth my time--it looks like an editor couldn't add anything useful to the article, so they decided to use this AfD as a soapbox. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess you only reserve your time to recommend articles for deletion not for bettering articles that already exist… I’ll get down of my soapbox now BATMAN19892001 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have some questions. If the article does get deleted, can it be reposted at a later time? What if Tribe of Fools or Armageddon at the Mushroom Village gets nominated for an award/awards and meets the necessary notability requirements? Will it be allowed to be reposted? What if we merge both articles Tribe of Fools and Armageddon at the Mushroom Village together and post:

at the top of the page? Could it remain up then? Also, Why would there be a need for a {{Unreferenced}} tag if all the articles were cited and referenced on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia’s notability requirements? BATMAN19892001 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Yes, it could be reposted, if notability was met at some point in the future. (Although if it was reposted without substantial changes, it would probably fall under speedy deletion). As for combining: no, I don't think combining the two would make a difference. (If in the future the group won some notable awards though, then maybe it would make sense to have a single article talking about both them and briefing summarizing their works). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (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.