Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple 8

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 keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple 8[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a theatre company had been tagged as unreferenced since 2009. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added one reference, but cannot find any more to add, so do not think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their website says: "We have produced seven productions to date". So, a short-lived company, producing short runs of plays in a small theatre, with no notable people involved. Not notable, per WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep. Article does need work. ~~However - whether the company currently exists is not relevant to notability. What is relevant is that the~~ The article now features a further 8 independent reviews from WP:RS covering 8 years of theatre productions from 2008 (including The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph). Should meet WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE too if we take this as a grouping of artists. I welcome guidance on whether WP:NCORP applies to what is (evidently) a small theatre company - but there is multiple sigcov analysis of their output. Pinging @Tacyarg and @Ssilvers for reassessment. ResonantDis_tortion 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written my objections above, which still stand, as this theatre company is like thousands of others that have come and gone in small theatres all over the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored and struck out text from my !vote in response to Ssilvers edits to their original comment which created a disjoint in the discussion narrative. Further clarification would be welcome on the relevant Wikipedia policy which states thousands of small theatre companies are worthy of deletion - in contrast to known policies such as WP:GNG which require multiple independent reliable sigcov references. ResonantDis_tortion 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL is an essay, it has no status as a policy or guidance; and I disagree with your characterization. This theatre group is a verified recipient of notable awards, and been the subject of sustained coverage from reliable independent sources (at national&regional levels thus meeting WP:AUD) over a 12 year period. They also must be doing something right and notable for independent reviewers to state phrases such as "the always impressive ensemble simple8"[1]. The article now references 13 reviews of the groups productions - IMV meets multiple WP:SIRS. ResonantDis_tortion 07:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved original article "Simple 8" to "Simple8" as there should be no space in the name. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep in light of significant expansion and sourcing by ResonantDistortion per WP:HEY, as when the article was first nominated, it was essentially an unsourced stub with exactly one footnote. Notability is established per WP:CREATIVE, with multiple reviews in national newspapers for its body of work over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. Searches in Wikipedia Library and ProQuest turn up enough results that it seems very likely that adding all the content that belongs in the article (also from theatre industry publications) will take a lot more time (i.e., it's still a work in progress). Simple8 even has a significant differentiator from other small theatre companies, in that it had a stated commitment to sustainability from early on, as borne out by its productions (set design, power consumption in lighting, etc.). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (as nominator), per WP:HEYMANing of article. Thanks, and apologies for not finding these sources myself when I Befored. Tacyarg (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2023 (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.