Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imaginary Theatre Association

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. W.marsh 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Imaginary Theatre Association

The Imaginary Theatre Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Roleplaying group. No apparent notability. --InShaneee 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted what amounted to a copy of Talk:The Imaginary Theatre Association. I believe the intent was to highlight several other people's defense of the notability of the ITA, but I don't think that's the correct way to go about it. Those interested are encouraged to check out that Talk page. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7, club that fails to assert any notability or encyclopedic value. Agent 86 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete RPG group, 26 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is eligable for speedy deletion, per the non-criteria, "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted." While the article doesn't say "The ITA is notable because..." in as many words, it does call out the number of distinct groups and links to the media coverage. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The group has notability through size (100+ members? Would be nice if someone with knowledge could provide an exact number) and scale (10+ cities across Ontario). While relatively young, it has existed for three years, long enough to survive the high failure rate of many groups. The Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation apparently considered one of the ITA's member groups noteworthy enough to cover: [1]. The ITA appears to be a significant group in Canadian LARPing, similar to NASCRAG, albet smaller and younger. The article should certainly be improved to emphasize why it's notable, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good case of "might be notable someday."--Dmz5 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the article does assert notability: it's encompasses 13 other organizations across Ontario, making it region-wide group. I've added a line to the article in question trying to call this out more clearly. The ITA has also been subject to independant media coverage (the CBC video). Alan De Smet | Talk 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• No Need For Deletion - Honestly, I don't think this should be deleted because it IS out there, it has many members and it is getting larger and larger each year. I was first introduced to this a couple years ago when I was living in Oakville, ON and I don't think at the time I was ready for it. Although my buddy was all about it and he loved doing it I never got the hang of the real life stuff. Although I did enjoy the table top it made me think outside of the box I guess you could say. I have saw this grow from a couple friends to many people in real life and in the online world. I have met many people through this and I think it will get bigger and bigger as the years go on. From it being on tv and now online I think it has the potential to get the exposure and reach its targeted audience plus make many people happy as it has been doing to its members for the years it has been alive. I have heard of many groups failing and I think thats right that it has survived all the trials and tribulations of a group such as this. I have no reason to think that this should be deleted. People will continue enjoying the experience that the ITA brings no matter what. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maclawa (talk • contribs) 12:49, December 7, 2006 (UTC) — Maclawa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The ITA information is valuble to Wikipedia - Hello, Everybody, I am new to Wikipedia. I am also a member of the Imaginary Theatre Association. After reading the ITA article, i found this to be noteworthy in the spirit of Wikipedia. Throughout the article, it is still new, and given more time, i feel that this article will eventually meet the standards of Wikipedia. This srticle should not be up for deletion. If anyone wishes to discuss this article at length, I will be here. (Ironangel77 06:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) — User:Ironangel77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, non-notable gaming club. Weregerbil 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• To Weregerbil; wecome to our dscussion. Please expand on why you think that the ITA is non-notable gaming club not to be 'difficult' on this issue, but however please list examples of notable "PR gaming clubs" on Wikipedia, and as well sents we are in a discussion about notable Articles... What would you like to see to make the The Imaginary Theatre Association section more notable ? thank you for your time in this matter . Rcehoppe 09:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To make the club more notable the club should be somehow notable. The article shows no evidence of notability. Weregerbil 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP, notable gaming club,- to all; Please keep in mind that we are just starting out on Wikipedia, we would like to given time to work with others and have there input. I might have jumped the gun and just started posted, and if that was wrong i really do apologize - however I really like Wikipedia and just would really like this to work, please keep this Article and help us to make this better for everyone, and please give us a chance at the very leas. Thank you for your time and understanding Rcehoppe 09:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Page's creator, few edits outside of that page. --InShaneee 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• keepWheteher or not Ihave heard of them is not relevant, and the exqamples given above are sufficient to show that others do know it.DGG 08:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What guideline for notability does it meet? Vegaswikian 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would not consider the CBC video to be a good start to meeting notability. Firstly, the video is not really about ITA. It's about LARP. Second, I didn't hear the ITA mentioned in the video. There were some larpers in the video. They might have belonged to the ITA. -- Ben (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• To all - Hello, this is RECHOPPE again :) First I would like thank everyone for there insight. Thank you in the last little bit there has been a bit of an update to the The Imaginary Theatre Association Article - (1.1 Player/ Campaign Involvement ) i hope that this helps :] and i would thank for everyone for time in this matter, again thank you all Rcehoppe 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Not talked about, google gives 50 hits for "The Imaginary Theatre Association", msotly spam -- Steve Hart 07:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi Steve - to note: Andrew Lenahan posted that threw was only 26 unique hits on Google " and if you say that is now at 50 hits? That is cool to know - I guess with that in mind, i think that at less someone is talk about The Imaginary Theatre Association, So i think that is Good/Right/Notable? Thank you for your time Rcehoppe 07:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No need to be mean about the whole thing. I don't see the reason to get nasty -- its a AfD, some people are biased. Obviously you contain no bias yourself but i don't see the reason to turn it ugly. MrMacMan 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to MrMacMan : i am not getting nasty, i am just posting a point to Steve's Delete Comment the in the hopes to contue the discussion of the point that he posted,if thst came a cross as nasty, i do apologize for that, in the mean time to do thank-you for your post Rcehoppe 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from reliable sources indicating notability based on the criteria at WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To Kinu it is said that "The following cannot be used to assert notability: Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article. wich i think that is posted Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself. and Student-run newspapers. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations%29" again the use of "Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself". and i think that that links add to the ITA criteria has been met. Rcehoppe 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please reread my statement. No one said the information can't be used as source material... the point is that it can't be used as a claim of notability though, which is the issue here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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.