Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburban Beast

: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. The consensus seems to be that the coverage is not substantial or nontrivial enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia NW (Talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[Suburban Beast]]=

:{{la|Suburban Beast}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburban Beast}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Suburban Beast}})

Non-notable performance company lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. There are a number of press releases and listings of performances, but it does not appear there has been substantial coverage of the group. Appears to fail WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable theatre company, no independent references beyond local/special interest media. Fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not-notable. Evalpor (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep There's a statement with the published source: Eye Weekly. I know it fits into a subject, but am I right thinking that one published source is good enough to escape deletion? Minima c (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Eye Weekly is a free weekly newspaper. It is dubious whether it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable#News organizations. Many similar newspapers rely on media releases from the subject of the article as the "source of truth". WWGB (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the article within these pages on Eye Weekly, we learn that it is owned by Torstar, the parent company of the Toronto Star, and that it is currently published by their Star Media Group. I am willing to believe that Toronto Star and its affiliates are RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Verifiable it is, but notable it doesnt seem to be. —Soap— 21:40, 29 March 2010 (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.