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 of the discussion was delete. The abundance of 'reviews' added has been adequately addressed by Merzbow, and I find it especially damning that no articles link to this one. This theatre is not of any particular note. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Playhouse[edit]

I was the original nominator... this is a vanity page (original author is a Majeski sock) that fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies_and_corporations) as well as WP:NOR and WP:RS. No notable Google hits. - Merzbow 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Nomination previously bundled with Marilyn Majeski; separating because they deserve two different discussions. Lbbzman 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - created my marilyn majeski for the purpose of vanity. pschemp | talk 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. --InShaneee 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A company that shut it's doors when the internet was still in its infancy cannot be judged on google hits. Thirteen New York Times articles have been added as references. All can be easily found on the NY Times website, simply sign up for a free website membership and search Grove Street Playhouse. More evidence of notability to follow. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 16:47:42 (UTC)

Production reviews from any theater's local paper (and in this case the NYT is the local paper) are a dime a dozen. What awards has this theater won? I still don't see evidence of notability. (And please sign your comments and register a vote). - Merzbow 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but The NY Times is NOT in the same category as a small town local newspaper. They have very high standards because there are a much higher number of theatre companies competing for reviews. Only noteworthy productions are generally covered. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 17:16:55 (UTC)

Even among the set of all theaters that have had productions reviewed in their major hometown paper, notability must be established. I still see nothing that indicates that this particular theater stands outside the crowd. - Merzbow 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times may not be in the same category as a small town local newspaper, but it is STILL a local newspaper when it comes to covering its own town. And as for A company that shut it's [sic] doors when the internet was still in its infancy cannot be judged on google hits -- well, I can't imagine anyone who would call 2002 a year when the Internet was in its infancy -- but even that's immaterial, as as the massive numbers of Google hits for "Joseph Papp" (excluding hits for some nutcase inventor of the same name) and "Federal Theatre Project" would show, given both predate Google entirely. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A Local theatre that happens to be local to New York City. No sign of particular notability or influence on the arts. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. There are enough verifiable references from a reliable source to establish some notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. Although there has been much dispute, which I have been involved in, over this article, the added references are regarding shows that took place at the theater, mostly by other production companies who rented the space. There are still no references for numerous points in the article which the creator and her sockpuppets are not allowing others to edit, even when there have been references (including the New York Times, which the creator now agrees is a reputable source). Based on these actions of the creator, it remains a vanity article.--NYTheaterHistorian 06:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP IT and clean it up.

Grove Street Playhouse, originally the Courtyard Playhouse, is VERY NOTABLE for being one of the very FIRST and longest surviving Off-Off Broadway theatres. the "small NYT blurb from 5 yrs ago about an obscure zoning dispute" which Merzbow cites on the Marilyn Majeski project page, is actually a full 1/2 page article on page 3 of the NY Times, complete with photo of Ms. Majeski, which details a much longer and richer history of this theatre, which dates back to the days of Cino's Cafe. ("Making It Work: Serial Drama at Grove Street Playhouse", Corey Kilganon, NY Times, 01/24/99). I also found an article on Backstage.com ("Miss Majesty's Licked: Grove Street Shudders) which also chronicles the 49 year history of this theatre. Perhaps for vanity reasons, Majeski has limited the editorials exclusively to the period after 1994 when she changed the company's name.

I trust the NY Times fact checkers, according to Wikipedia's standards this is considered a highly reliable source. Likewise, Backstage is equally reliable as the #1 trade publication for theatre. Grove Street Playhouse is an important part of theatrical history and should not be deleted, but kept and cleaned up.

I think that NYTheatreHistorian should be blocked from editing this page, because clearly he has some sort of personal vendetta against this woman. The edit history shows a clear pattern of vandalism on his part. Most disturbing aren his repeated attempts to reveals her current place of employment. My understanding is that divulging personal information is strictly against Wikipedia policy. Although, I disagree with Ms. Majeski's use of socks, if she is being "stalked" as she claims, perhaps she is doing this out of fear. Irregardless, the history of this organization should not be deleted because of it's former artistic director's bad behavior.

Anyone who has voted to Delete should check out these articles - you may want to change your minds. ≈--Casual Observer 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Above comments made by another sock. pschemp | talk 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT a "sock" for this woman! If you will check the IP address I made my remarks from, you will find that it reverts back to my hotel room. Do you really think this woman is renting a hotel room to edit Wikipedia under an assumed identity? It seems like you are blocking people based solely on their point of view. I wonder how many other people you've falsely accused. Please, unblock me. Casual Observer

Interesting that the IP address 63.164.145.85 for the unsigned comment above is registered to Kinko's, Inc. through SprintLink with an address in Reston, VA just outside of Washington, DC. I was not aware that Kinko's had branched out to provide service internet to hotels these days. --NYTheaterHistorian 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Minor editing and multiple references added including Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, and People Magazine article featuring Marilyn Majeski. Also a quote from the ever quotable Quentin Crisp has been added. In an interview with the Off-Off Broadway Review's Marshall Yaeger he said: "I'm not famous - I'm notorious. If I, who am nothing, can get to the Grove Street Theatre, then anyone can achieve anything!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) <-another sock IP pschemp | talk 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but clean-up needed. The New York Times is perfectly acceptable as a source and has an international status, regardless of its city franchise. 1,000 word NYT article on its threatened/imminent closure is of note.[1] Tyrenius 05:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, NYTheatreHistorian has deliberately introduced false information into this article. The primary reference material which is cited as the source for his most recent edit, Playbill October 1, 1998 is readily available on line at http://www.playbill.com/news/article/41186.html and makes no mention of the statements included in NYTheatreHistorian's most recent contribution to this article. In fact, the article gives a very different reason for the litigation. NYTheatreHistorian has continued to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for stalking and harrasssment as defined by the law. This indidvidual's activities extend beyond the pages of Wikipedia into the real world. Wikipedia's Administrators have provided no assistance to the victim in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.82.84.3 (talk • contribs) .

(This user has been warned for making these personal attacks. Tyrenius 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)) Clarification - 164.82.84.3 has been warned for making personal attacks in the passage immediately above. Tyrenius 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected referrence from http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117481186?categoryid=15&cs=1 , which validates entry noted above as factual and not a personal attack, nor stalking or harrassment. -- 151.202.72.206 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--NYTheaterHistorian 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC) hmmm pschemp | talk 20:29, 12 July 2006 (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.