Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. I recommend more work on strengthening the article, however. Tyrenius 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Theatre Club[edit]

Experimental Theatre Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a acting club at Oxford? I can't find any third party sources to indicate notability besides possibly having Rowan Atkinson perform for it. I'm not convinced every student association at Oxford warrants an article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so where are the sources that show the rest of the story? At least there's books used as references in the other two articles. FrozenPurpleCube 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and failing WP:V unless the new page University of Oxford Clubs is created by the end of the AfD. A merge to the main article looks messy and a merge to a non-existent page would be tricky :-) The material can be added to a user sandbox and merged later if required. Bridgeplayer 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer The above comments related to a very different version of the article - see history. Johnbod 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article expansion and referencing now begun Johnbod 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I suggest you address the notability issue first. So far many of your sources are not about the club, but rather brief resume/obit mentions in coverage of notable people. And heck, one of your sources is on everything2.com. I am not sure that's a reliable source. It's possible the JSTOR articles are better, but I would suggest more diligence in improving this article, as it seems to me you're just throwing things together. That's not really significant improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You must be kidding about notability. The club is even more distinguished than I had imagined. I suppose you must have zero interest in British theatre and film. There are clearly many articles in large reference works on the club which I have not been able to access quickly. Just out of interest, what exact prgramme of research on your part led to you concluding, in your nomination above "I can't find any third party sources to indicate notability besides possibly having Rowan Atkinson perform for it"?  : Johnbod 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not kidding. Establishing notability is the burden of the editors of the article. So far, you haven't managed much that's convincing. Providing coverage of their notability isn't simply a matter of saying "You don't know what you're talking about" but rather you proving you know what you're talking about. So tell us about who has covered their plays, awards they've won. Not just a few mentions in obits and resumes. Heck, maybe they've had a show on the BBC or other major television channel? That'd probably establish notability. FrozenPurpleCube 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have in fact had both, but these are minor claims to notability compared to what is already in the article. You have a wierd sense of priorities, if you don't mind me saying so! Johnbod 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you're the one who has a weird sense of priorities, since you seem to think that things like being in Dudley Moore's obit means something significant. You'd be better off sourcing the BBC appearance or noting some significant award coverage. Sorry, but the sources in the article now? Not that much of an improvement. OTOH, if they're notable enough that their productions are broadcast on a national television channel? That's be convincing. Feel free to find sources that show that was the case and add them to the article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As are you, if you think them so important. Having referenced their world premiere of a play by one of the most important playrights of the 20th century, I've done enough for today.Johnbod 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's not important about having sources? It's pretty obvious that's a good thing. Or do you mean national television broadcasts? Well, it helps that they tend to receive a lot more coverage, which means there are well, sources. Almost certainly reliable ones. If the appearance couldn't be sourced, then it would hardly be a good demonstration of importance. Hence my suggestion that you find sources actually on the theater, ones better than you've provided. I'm sorry if you resent it, but obituaries and resumes aren't very convincing. Nor this tenuous connection to a play. Unless you can provide better sources to connect the play to the theater itself. An obit in a college program? Not a good demonstration of notability. Seriously, look for sources on the club, not passing mention in obits and resumes. That information might be reliable enough to include in the subject of the obit's own article, but they'd still need to demonstrate notability through other means. FrozenPurpleCube 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a serious confusion between sources WP:RS and notability WP:N. The subjects of articles must be notable, the sources must be reliable. You seem fixated on the relative notability of sources, which is not in itself relevant. Johnbod 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe you're mistaken in your comprehension as to what I'm saying, as I don't see how I'm fixated on the sources in the way you're talking about. Certainly there are better sources than others, but I'm not especially concerned about anything relating to the actual sources as such. (Though I do think a college obit and everything2.com are not reliable sources on their own to demonstrate notability of a person). My primary concern is the relevance of your sources to this club. That's a different problem. Your sources are primarily about other people, not about the club itself. I don't know why I'm having such a problem explaining this to you. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's not true. I have referenced an OUP concise encyclopedia & two JSTOR articles that are general references. Other references relate to specific productions and individuals. That is what drama companies of any sort do - they put on productions. Books about them (I have read a few) are greatly expanded versions of the material now in the article. Johnbod 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. Source 1 is restricted access, but it may be acceptable as it isn't self-published. I'd like to know what content you used from it though. Source 2 is the Pembroke College Record, which only mentions the theatre club in the obituary of Donald Taylor. Hardly significant coverage of the club in a third party source. Source 3 is apparently a program from a play. That's not a good source at all, it's a primary one, not even a secondary. Source 4 is similar to 2 in that it's about Michael Flanders, not the club. Source 5 is Dudley Moore's obit. Thus also not about the club. Source 6 is about John Schlesinger on Everything2.com, but it apparently copied from an obituary in the LA Times. Means its not about the club. Source 7 is an index of a collection of materials at a library. Not a good source as it says nothing about the actual club. Source 8 is a bio of Michael Palin, again, not about the club. Source 9 is David Wood's resume, which means it's not about the actual club. It's also a SPS. Source 10? Samuel West's Curriculum Vitae. So another thing not about the club. Source 11? Don't want to buy the article, but it seems to be a list of Shakespeare performances in theaters. I do not think mention in it demonstrates notability. Or am I wrong, and there is significant coverage of the club there? Perhaps you'd care to copy and paste the material you used? For that matter? What content did you from Source 12 about this club? A statement when it was founded? Kind of trivial coverage there. That leaves the last source, which may be the best, so, exactly what does it say about the club, and how did you use it in the article? FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're not going to listen to me, but as I see it, most of your sources are people's bios, which is not good coverage of this club at all. Try to find sources about this club, articles that do more than a passing mention. That'll work better than protesting that your sources are good. Right now, maybe 2 or 3 of your sources are acceptable, but they're not really convincing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 18 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Experimental_Theatre_Club&oldid=1069811356"