Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre

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 keep‎. The nominator needs to present a more compelling justification for deletion than that you couldn't find the sources online when you looked. Sources aren't required to be accessible online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A google search for the topic found only the website, a local guide, and user-generated information. Also I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online, and 6th source is trivial coverage. Therefore not notable. -- unsigned post by EternalNub

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Helping get rid of non-notable articles
Keep: I'd like to AGF that the offline sources are legit, in which case there is SIGCOV. Perhaps an editor with access the relevant archives can verify? -- D'n'B-t -- 10:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to locate one of them, so I'm more confident that the others are legit. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online" is not an acceptable argument for deletion; see WP:PAPERONLY, which says There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Restricting editors to using online sources would mean that most of the information in the world would be unavailable to us. Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa! According to its website, this is an amateur theatre company with 39 seats performing in a Victorian house. No stage productions are currently scheduled -- it appears mostly to screen movies. It serves dessert with its shows (if they ever have any) and supposedly won a non-notable amateur theatre award. The article notes that a non-notable playwright premiered a non-notable work there. No one involved in it is asserted to be notable. Assuming this is all true, why is this an encyclopedic topic? Its website says that its theatre is available for rental for weddings, parties and classes. This seems to be an extreme case of a run-of the mill community theatre company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it got coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 1999, and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Neither of those are local to Sacramento, so apparently it was a bigger deal in the past than it is today. Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Toughpigs correctly pointed out, sources being offline doesn't matter. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (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.