Talk:Young and Talented School of Stage and Screen

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I'm pretty sure that this article, as it currently stands, does not meet the notability criteria - as it doesn't have third-party Reliable Sources saying why the school itself (rather than some of its graduates) are of note. I've left a message on the creator's talkpage about this as they've done a lot of work on this over a couple of iterations in collaboration with other editors. Please don't "speedy delete" right away, let's give it a couple of days to see if the author - who's clearly available and willing to receive feedback - can resurrect it. Witty lama 03:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two years since I wrote this message... and the article still reads like an advert and doesn't have any notability claim. I will list this for deletion myself shortly unless this is addressed. Witty lama 13:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article passes GNG, since it has coverage in multiple third-party sources, some added after your first comment. The advert stuff is a separate issue and can be trimmed out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly does have multiple third party references now, but they only prove that the school exists... They say nothing which could be seen as a Notability claim. The closest thing to a notability claim is the small business award in 2013 (Which is not referenced) but even then that's not really particularly notable... The first 5 or so references are only to footnote the fact that: it's a school; it had a director; it is based in a place; it has a name; has previously been held classes at a different place. Then there are two quotes from local news sources that say how the kids that go to this school get a good experience.

It looks very much to me like WP:EXISTS applies here... Witty lama 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that notability guidelines doesn't say that you have to prove "why" the subject is notable, but given that so many of the sources that are being used to justify the notability here are so very "tenuous" (for wont of a better word), the article remains very thinly justified IMHO. Here's an analysis of the first 25 footnotes in the article as it stands currently:

1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 are offline refs that I can't check, so I can't confirm their claims. That's not to say that offline refs are bad/wrong inherently, but if all major facts are cited to those things it's impossible to verify.
2 is a 'soft' interview with the founder - about herself not the school. It mentions the school as a side subject.
3 is a recording from local radio where the presenter reads a press-release/advertisement about the school (followed by a recording of a performance)
7, 14 and 17 are Y&T's own website.
8, 11, 16 and 22 are the homepage of the website of the organisations/people that is being referred to in the prose. They don't mention Y&T.
13 and 15 DO specifically mention Y&T, for winning a small business award. No details or what could be called "significant coverage" though, just the award listing.
18 only mentions "Y&T Rep." in the final paragraph without elaboration.
19 is a review of a show performed by Y&T Rep on a user-submitted reviews website by a reviewer who has only published a review of one play - this one.
20 is a review on the same user-submitted review website.
21 is a local radio audio file that has disappeared from the internet.
23 is a link to another wikipedia article - Carrie Grant.
24 is a deadlink.
25 is an event listing that does mention Y&T in more than passing, but still isn't what many people would call a "reliable source" (their about us page).

So... It's taken to the 25th footnote to get to the first thing which could be used to potentially argue that Y&T "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per WP:GNG). So you see why I'm skeptical about this article... on first appearances it looks like it has lots of references, but when you dig a little there's very little substance to justify Notability, at least at present. I wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to denigrate the good work or social value of this school - nor of the good-faith contributions made by the Wikipedian who has created and nurtured this article. I hope I'm not coming across as hostile but rather I'm hoping to see this article improved.

[I should add as a side-note that there's been some conversation about the notability of this article going on over at the talkpage of the primary editor here.] -- Witty lama 15:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone ahead and tried to tighten up the article: cutting out the broken/spurious/duplicate/vanity references, bringing the micro-sections together, deleted a bunch of weird external links, adding a bunch of "citation needed" tags for things that either weren't referenced or referenced too poorly to justify their factual claim. I've tried to make my edit summaries clear and detailed so it's easy to see what I've cut/moved. Still needs more cleaning up though. Witty lama 01:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wittylama, Thank you so much for the work you've done to tighten up the article!!! I will continue to work on it to improve it and add relible sources where needed. Once again a BIG THANK YOU!!!!!!! Warmest regards, Andreea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Teia (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]