Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in theatre

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. If anyone wants the contents userfied to build a decent broad article, please contact me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in theatre[edit]

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

I am nominating these articles for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are only two articles in the series of "years in theatre" and the 2009 one seems to have been abandoned half way through. Secondly, both articles are too Broadway/American centric to be classed as an unbiased look at that year in Theatre. London's West End produces productions of a quality equal to that of Broadway and this is just not represented. Also, after a quick glance, there are at least 5 productions incorrectly listed in the 2009 article (Shades, King Lear, The Indian Wants the Bronx, The Stone, Be Near Me etc etc etc) all played non-west end houses such as the Donmar/Young Vic/Royal Court and not in the west end. I see no chance of expanding the "years in theatre" template any further, and just feel that it is not useful being so incomplete Mark E (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons outlined above,[reply]

Delete: The articles as noted above are extremely "Broadway/American centric" with no mention of notable off-Broadway, London, or other English or non-English language theatre productions and little of non US actors / directors, etc. There might be a case for a move to 2008 on Broadway and 2009 on Broadway (or similar), especially if someone is likely to create further articles in the series. As they stand, with the present naming, it would be next to impossible to expand these sufficiently to cover theatre throughout the world without creating an extremely large article and the difficulties of deciding on the noatbility of the productions to be listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. As the articles now stand they are incomplete and really do not represent "Theatre in [year]". For the record, I have worked extensively on both the 2008 and 2009 articles. I found that they were next to impossible to keep up-to-date; I live in the US and so I found it hard to get sources for the West End/London productions; and, most importantly, there was never really a clear understanding (by me) or consensus (among those editors who care) about what the articles should contain. But it is not about one editor, this type of article series needs, in my opinion: agreement as to its very need; consensus as to what it should contain (and not be simply a replica of the film formula); and committment on the part of many editors to maintain it.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I think that the principals discussed in WP:PROBLEM should be considered here. For example, the argument that "Nobody's working on it". The guiding principal here is that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline." I believe that, given a thoughtful consensus as to scope and content, these articles are useful. Or, the argument "Poorly written article". These articles are not really poorly writen, but are incomplete. This is easily remedied should editors chose to take on the project. I therefore am changing my view to a "No Opinion", and hopefully raising important points about the articles.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) that[reply]

Qualified keep. As per previous user comment, these articles have a realistic possibility of being useful. They should be probably just be tagged with the various shortcomings which will hopefully lead to a tidy-up. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the consensus is keep I would agree with Jezhotwells that they should be named 2008 on Broadway with the few bits of London information removed, as it is not representative of global theatre

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2008 on Broadway as not representative of world theatre. No mention of Noh, for example. T3h 1337 b0y 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both with leave to recreate neutral worldwide articles. Moving per T3h 1337 b0y would be a second choice. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 9 August 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.