Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Theatre (Ledbury)
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 merge to Ledbury#Recreation. Shimeru (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Market Theatre (Ledbury)[edit]
- Market Theatre (Ledbury) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested proposed deletion. Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY - there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. Much of the article is a direct copyright violations of the official website [1] - see the link to the amateur dramatic society. Claritas (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A small local theatre, but the information is verifiable through reliable sources. See Hereford Times, Ledbury Reporter. The copyvio issue is fixable.
--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NLI - "In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself." I don't see that here, although WP:NLI is still under development. Claritas (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, Claritas. In this case, I can imagine a well-written and informative article, enriching this project. It is just my opinion, perhaps influenced by WP:NOTPAPER. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some topics of local interest should have articles about them, but there simply isn't enough independent coverage on the subject. Claritas (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, let's wait what others will say. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some topics of local interest should have articles about them, but there simply isn't enough independent coverage on the subject. Claritas (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, Claritas. In this case, I can imagine a well-written and informative article, enriching this project. It is just my opinion, perhaps influenced by WP:NOTPAPER. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Superstevegs (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I've added an earlier reference to the Hereford Times having found an article in its archives of the Design Award the theatre won in 2000. This is more relevant than those listed earlier on this page, and should address Lord Pistachio's concerns. There is no copyright issue with www.themarkettheatre.com since I maintain that website.[reply]
- Concerning copyright issues, you (or whoever owns copyright on that website) would have to license the text under the Creative Commons license in order for Wikipedia to accept it. Note that, by doing so, you also would be giving permission for anyone else to redistribute or modify the text as they see fit. However, this article you have just quoted is unlikely to move much difference to the deletion outcome - it merely adds to the handful of local references cited (normally we would expect the subject of an article to have received some coverage in national sources), and the award mentioned seems to be a very local award restricted to organisations within the town - not exactly the Tony awards. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris, I think you misunderstand: the award was for the building - not a theatrical one. Please answer this - how does the Market Theatre (Ledbury) article differ in 'notability' from that for the Lace Market Theatre in Nottingham? (I pick this one since, if one looks for 'Market Theatre' in Wikipaedia, that is one of the three choices.) The latter has 8 references (I can only find two suitable independent ones for us), but of these; one is in German, one is to the Charity Commission (we also have one to that body), one (no. 5) doesn't work and the others are only to local newspapers etc. I cannot find a reference to a national body (I class BBC Nottingham as being 'local'). The Lace Market Theatre is a listed building, but has only been a theatre since the 1970's. The Market Theatre in Ledbury isn't listed: it was built in 1999 but we have claimed it was the first theatre in the world to open in 2000 (on January 19th). Although we cannot substantiate that claim, we made it in 2003 and it has not been challenged. If you Google for "first theatre in the world to open" (within quotes), most of the results point to the Market Theatre in Ledbury - so if another theatre opened between 1st and 18th January 2000, we would have heard of it by now.
- The third 'Market Theatre' in Wikipaedia's listing - that in Johannesburg - has no references at all. My point is - if you are going to apply rules of 'notability' etc, the same rules should be applied in all cases. Superstevegs (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ALLORNOTHING. If someone nominates Lace Market Theatre for deletion, I would probably say the same thing. The only claim unique to the Market Theatre is being the first to open after turn of the millennium. Being the first amateur theatre in the Midlands to open might be enough to establish notability, but being the first to open after after 1st January 2000 (which is an arbitrary point in time) is a tenuous claim. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since Wikipaedia is an electronic encylopaedia, you might have a point. I would expect to find (for example) the pin assignments for an HDMI connector or the habitat of a Song Thrush here - and indeed I can. That's where Wikipaedia is a tremendously useful resource. If the Market Theatre in Ledbury has no place here, then I suggest that no other theatre does - unless it has a real claim to fame, such as The Theatre of Small Convenience in nearby Malvern, which is the world's smallest. Apart from the other 'Market Theatres' on the Market Theatre page, I have found two other local theatres in Wikipaedia that have no more merit than the Market Theatre, Ledbury. If 'someone nominates them for deletion', could that 'someone' be me - and if so, how do I do it?
- At my request a few months ago, the 'disambiguation' page Market Theatre was created, with links to three 'Market Theatre' articles. If Wiki moderators wish to save server space, might I suggest that all such articles are deleted and links to them replaced with links to the organisers' websites?
- BTW - another of our members has drawn my attention to two other pertinent references, which I have now added to the Wiki page: that the former theatre was, from 1960 until 1979, the only theatre in Herefordshire, and that it is a member of the Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain.
- BTW2 - Although I had ticked the 'Watch This Page' checkbox, I was unaware that it was being considered as an AfD until I happened, by chance, to look for it. I would expect an email notification if any page I was watching had changed - or doesn't it work that way? Superstevegs (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find recent changes on pages which you are watching through Special:Watchlist. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ALLORNOTHING. If someone nominates Lace Market Theatre for deletion, I would probably say the same thing. The only claim unique to the Market Theatre is being the first to open after turn of the millennium. Being the first amateur theatre in the Midlands to open might be enough to establish notability, but being the first to open after after 1st January 2000 (which is an arbitrary point in time) is a tenuous claim. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning copyright issues, you (or whoever owns copyright on that website) would have to license the text under the Creative Commons license in order for Wikipedia to accept it. Note that, by doing so, you also would be giving permission for anyone else to redistribute or modify the text as they see fit. However, this article you have just quoted is unlikely to move much difference to the deletion outcome - it merely adds to the handful of local references cited (normally we would expect the subject of an article to have received some coverage in national sources), and the award mentioned seems to be a very local award restricted to organisations within the town - not exactly the Tony awards. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NLI - "In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself." I don't see that here, although WP:NLI is still under development. Claritas (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. Even the mentions in local news sources seem to be no more than "arts roundup" sort of articles, which are rather trivial mentions. --LordPistachio talk 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Ledbury#Recreation. I think a amateur dramatic society that has kept running since the 1950s earns a mention, but I don't see what encyclopaedic information we can give except that the society and theatre exist. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) [Ledbury Amateur Dramatic Society has actually been in existence since 1938. It is second only to Ledbury Rugby Club as the longest established society in the town. Superstevegs (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- ... Okay, this seems to be the most sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above, seems to have some local notability. Polarpanda (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per reading above discussion, agree with Superstevegs. Judicatus (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - as nominator, I see the case for a merge of relevant content. Claritas (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This theatre is mentioned in numerous reliable publications as a venue. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (keeping redirect). This is a good solution to local facilities on the margins of notability (which I think this is). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2010 (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.