Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afterburner (theatre production company)

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 delete. The consensus is the article should not exist as an article about the theatre company, so it will be deleted. Anyone wishing to obtain the content as a draft, including about Martyn Roberts, may request this at WP:REFUND without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afterburner (theatre production company)[edit]

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

Afterburner (theatre production company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG based on significant coverage by independent sources. No sources cover the theatre company in any level of depth, and the majority of cites are closely connected to the company or otherwise not-independent. The best source, a review ([1]) speaks only to the basic facts of the company. — HTGS (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is blatantly an ad. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's pretty on the nose. It's not an ad at all, I don't know the people involved and have not been to any of their performances. The article came about as part of the Performing Arts Aotearoa New Zealand project, an attempt to improve the pretty rubbish coverage of performing arts companies and people in NZ. I'll notify participants there in case anyone is aware of more sources, I do agree that they aren't great, I was disappointed with what I could find when I wrote the page, given the multi-award winning people involved in it. DrThneed (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as nominator, while I have issue with the fact that the page is by consequence promotional, I did check the edit history and I have absolute confidence that DrThneed created and edited in good faith. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion - I have today expanded the article in an attempt to better demonstrate notability of 'demonstrable effects on culture, entertainment'. It may still not meet requirements and I look forward to further review and investigation. Perhaps it could be merged into an an article about the founder Martyn Roberts. As a member of the New Zealand performing arts industry I am declaring here that Martyn Roberts is known to me - I have no ongoing professional work relationship with him or afterburner. Pakoire (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NORG. There are some issues. A theatre production company and the individual plays. The reviews are mainly about the plays. Some wording issues would be, "I have no ongoing professional work relationship...". Any editor that has, or has had, a relationship with the subject needs to declare a conflict of interest.
Done Pakoire (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (on the talk page of the article)[reply]
  • Comment: The content of the article is mainly about the works of a small collective of artists, including reception, reviews and awards. It seems reasonable to use the notability criteria WP:ARTIST for assessing the notability of the artists work or output. On that basis, it seems clear that notability has been established. I also note this, from the lead of WP:ORG "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." There are parallels in this case with "co-authors" and "co-inventors", and therefore WP:ORG may not be the most suitable guideline. Would it help if the word "company" in the article title was changed to "collective" ? --Marshelec (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the recent additions since this was put up for deletion, there is now enough referencing of substance that shows notability. Schwede66 20:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the recent additions have included references that meet WP:NCORP. If you think some do, can you link to them here and point to which part of them contains in-depth information about the organization (see WP:CORPDEPTH). HighKing++ 17:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There have been multiple edits, expansions and citations since the article was proposed for deletion. There are now sufficient citations to establish notability.Marshelec (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The article has certainly been expanded and improved - but we need references that meet WP:NCORP guidelines to establish notability. Sadly none of the additions do that. Just to show why, here's commentary on the first six or seven that were added. This Theatre Review reference was added - it doesn't even mention the topic company. This from Theatre Times is an interview with the founder which arguably contains a single sentence about the company, that is neither nor significant fails CORPDEPTH. This journal also contains no in-depth information on the organisation, fails CORPDEPTH. Then there are four reviews about "The Singularity" that mention the organization in passing, again all fail CORPDEPTH because there is no in-depth information about the organisation. HighKing++ 17:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and rename as a draft article on Martyn Roberts per 4meter4 below Delete This is a theatre organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We therefore require references that discuss the *organisation* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and also containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, or people involved with the company such as interviews fail ORGIND as do press releases, etc. Reviews of plays produced by the organization also does not meet the criteria as the topic itself must receive in-depth coverage. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Originally proposed moving and move to afterburner (theatre productions). While I disagree with the above assertion that "theatre organizations" are automatically subject to WP:NCORP – many theatre companies are in fact organised as nonprofits – I do agree that there is insufficient in-depth coverage of the afterburner "arts collective" itself according to even WP:NONPROFIT rules. Nevertheless, there *is* sufficient coverage of the *body of work* produced by afterburner to satisfy WP:GNG, so I think the solution is to rename and reframe the article. (Another possible solution would be to merge this content with a new article on Martyn Roberts, but in this case there is stronger independent SIGCOV of the body of work produced by afterburner, which also involves many other artists.) Sources establishing notability of the body of work per WP:GNG include the William Peterson review of The Telescope in Theatre Journal; reviews of The Singularity in Capital Times, the Dominion Post, and Theatreview itself; and the Theatreview review of Dark Matter. The 2017 NZ Fringe Award for "Best of Fringe" (to afterburner for Dark Matter) is also a major plus for notability. The article has expanded and improved significantly since nomination. Well done to all. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's any evidence that the company is run as a non-profit and that NCORP doesn't apply, I'll review my !vote above. Your suggestion to rework the article so that the topic is changed to focus on their theatre productions and thereby meet the slightly less strictly-interpreted guidelines of GNG might work although I'm not sure that, as a topic, the "Productions of afterburner" is notable either (or a valid topic). HighKing++ 11:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not against the idea of a rename and a change of the topic, just to be clear. HighKing++ 19:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing It would be very unusual for a theatre company to be "for-profit". The vast majority of theatre companies are non-profits, and many of them receive government funding of one form or another. Afterburner appears to be the recipient of government grants, which are usually only available to non-profits. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any content to confirm the status, but I think it is likely a non-profit given the award of a government grant.4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep Most sourcing is from publications in the theater field and an gov't arts council. There seems to be enough to put an article together. It's not the best, but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a rather vague response. NCORP requires *each* source to meet all the criteria. So which individual sources are you saying meet NCORP's criteria for notability? HighKing++ 16:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written for failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. The sourcing just isn't here for an article on the company, and I don't think a list of performances/productions by the company as suggested by Cielquiparle would be any better, as the sources are all individual reviews and are not discussed collectively in any sources. Therefore any such article would essentially be original research or synthesis. That said, I do think the content could be draftified and repurposed as an article on Martyn Roberts who would certainly pass criteria 3 and criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST. The company and its work could be covered in that article, and then this page could be redirected to the article on Martyn Roberts. This would seem to be the best policy based solution to the issue at hand.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and rename as a draft article on Martyn Roberts per 4meter4 (essentially resulting in deletion of an article with the name "afterburner" on this topic). From what I've read, I wasn't sure if Martyn Roberts would pass WP:GNG but certainly WP:NARTIST in this case looks like it makes sense. My one question is: What is the best way to make this happen? Could we request the closer to create such a draft, or should someone else create one in parallel? (Just trying to minimize number of steps and avoid losing the work that was done, but also don't want to jump the gun before this discussion is closed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be deleted because there is not enough press coverage of this company and because this company is not well-known. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and possibly merge anything that's relevant to Martyn Roberts. There's very little coverage in independent sources. JMWt (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2022 (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/Afterburner_(theatre_production_company)&oldid=1123176029"