Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internationalist 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 keep. The delete vote was rebutted and the merge vote isn't as strong as the keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalist Theatre[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)

I believe the endgame would be a very, very selective merge to Angelique Rockas (essentially: date of creation, stated intent, list of productions, and that's it). While I could do it myself, it would be a pretty unilateral action amounting to a deletion-by-redirection, so I would rather have some community input on this.

The current state of the article is awful (highly promotional, weird formatting quirks, untranslated foreign-language quotes, etc.) and it appears to be a nest of COI editing, but it does not matter as to whether it should be kept. I will however note that all refs to newspapers are actually refs to archive.org or flickr.com clips of the newspaper, which falls afoul of WP:COPYVIOEL, and should absolutely be cleaned up even if the article is kept.

What matters is whether there are references supporting the notability of that theatre company. First thing to get out of the way: I see not a single SIGCOV source discussing the IT itself (stuff like this are more-or-less disguised interviews with Angelique Rockas).There are, however, a couple of reviews of theatre productions by that company in the main press; in the same vein as authors of notable books being notable themselves, company having made notable performances might be notable, WP:INHERITED notwithstanding. The question is whether those are enough for notability, or fall under WP:ROUTINE (being covered in the specialized pages of the press might not be enough to show notability of the company producing the play - after all, there aren't that many professionally-made plays playing at a given moment in a given city, so the local press's specialized pages will often pick it up).

The applicable guideline here is either WP:NORG or WP:NACTOR (the former refers to the latter for entertainment groups but it is not super clear to me why it should be the case). For NORG, theatre reviews fall squarely into routine territory in my eyes. For NACTOR, we can exclude #2 and #3, but one could argue about #1. My feeling from the reviews is that The Balcony has been significantly picked up in the press but none of the others, hence failing the multiple notable (...) stage performances requirement. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The nominator makes a well-argued case. The edit history of the article shows a long list of sock puppets, so WP:DENY could also be considered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support... what? A merge to AR with the exact same scope I suggested? (DENY is irrelevant here. I do not think pure deletion is an option here, there is certainly enough to support at the very minimum a redirect.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Support... what?" – the proposal, which I understand is to selectively merge to Rockas and then leave a REDIRECT here. I don't understand why DENY would not apply. Look at the aarticle's histor and count the edits by now blocked editors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article easily passes WP:GNG with content in reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, BBC and the information about the company within articles about the founder definitely count for WP:GNG as the main topic does not have to be about the subject. Also AFD is not cleanup, the socks are obviously one COI editor, and the newspaper urls are an easily solved problem, just remove the urls and leave the details of the newspaper stories with cite news instead,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see two kinds of newspaper sources: performance reviews and interviews with the founder (or disguised interviews). The latter certainly do not count. The beef I have with the former is that they do not directly address the topic (the theatre company), in the words of WP:SIGCOV - not only is the company not the main topic, but the company is not discussed at all. So I disagree with the idea that the company itself has been the subject of SIGCOV, which is what you are saying if I understand correctly. However, NACTOR says (groups of) actors in multiple notable performances are notable; I think they have only one notable performance (The Balcony), but I think a reasonable person could say (e.g.) that Liolà was as well and that pushes it over the bar. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. I’ve also taken on some of the ce work at the Rockas BLP, and will be working on this one to remedy any improper influences that may have resulted from COI editing. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - Just finished a bit of CE at Angelique Rockas, removed the bulk of the Internationalist Theatre section and pointed to its main page. I’m of the mind that the prior interference with the 2 articles has subsided, although we should continue watching both articles to guard against fluff/promotion and our typical PAG vios. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theatre companies are known by their productions, and given that the productions of this company have been given many reviews in significant publications (not just local and specialist ones) and by well-known reviewers such as Nicholas de Jongh, it should be notable. As for concerns over COPYVIOEL, sourcing is not about online links, therefore this is a simple matter of removing the url, rather than removing the source. Sources not available on the internet are perfectly valid (the urls are useful for ease of checking, but without the urls, the sources are still acceptable). Hzh (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any secondary sources on the company (the same applies to its leader Angelique Rockas). It is a synthesis based on primary sources (ordinary reviews or listings of some productions, interviews by Rockas et.al). If the company is notable, then why its course, and achievements are not mentioned in essays, books etc. by academics, and experts of this field, e.g. on the history of British/London/English (whatever) theatre, the underground theatre etc.? ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews in reliable national newspapers are not ordinary and are secondary sources not primary sources and articles including the founder that include analysis of the company are also secondary sources. Academic coverage is not essential for nonacademic subjects, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I desagree. Reviews that mostly present a theatre production to let us know what's on this season do not automatically support notability. Allmost all productions of that king get a review somewhere. Moreover, some of the reviews, like this one ([1]; ref #17) barely mention the company, while focusing to the writer and the play. These kind of reviews are primary sources, giving information on single events. All active theatre companies can get some contemporary favorable reviews for their productions. The issue is that in order for a company to be notable, there must be some reliable secondary sources on its course, an account on its productions as a whole, a reliable review of its history and an evaluation of its impact. The total lack of seconadary sources in the case of the Internationalist Theatre is crucial: how can it be an important and notable company, and at the same time completely ignored (this is also true for Rockas as an actor) from the historians and researchers of the British/London theatrical scene? A good example for my point is the staging of Griselda Gambaro's play The Camp: although Rockas and her company actually are credited by a contermporary reviewer with the first production of the play in English in London, in October 1981, there is not a single reference (as far as I have seen) to Rockas or her company in the huge English-language literature on Gambaro and her work. And this rule does not confine only to the literature on Gambaro; it's a general rule. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least the production is noted here - [2]. Frankly I fail to see how not being mentioned in the literature on Gambaro is relevant (that is assuming that you have actually read all of them, which I doubt is true). A theatre company that performed a Shakespeare play not being mentioned in literature on Shakespeare is hardly something I would consider relevant to the notability of that company because that company is not defined by the Shakespeare play. Hzh (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theatricalia.com (your link) is a wiki: "Anyone can add a production if it’s not on the site" as stated in its homepage [3]. So the question -of my example above- remains: how come and the British premiere = English-language world premiere (not just any production) by Rockas' Intenationalist Theatre is not mentioned at all in the English-language literature on Gambaro, The Camp, its translations into English etc.? In Catherine Larson and Margarita Vargas (eds), Latin American Women Dramatists: Theatre, Texts, and Theories, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-253-21240-5 (pbk. edn.), Becky Boling in her essay "Reenacting Politics: The Theater of Griselda Gambaro" mentions (p.4) the US priemiere of the play in New York in 1983, but nothing is said of Rockas' Internationalist Theatre world premier in English language two years before. The same -no reference to the British, English-language world premiere- in Claire Taylor, Bodies and Texts: Configuations of Identity in the Works of Albalucia Angel, Griselds Gambaro, and Laura Esquivel, Modern Humanities Research Association, 2003. This is the rule everywhere with Rockas and her company: couldn't find a thing in secondary English-language literatute on theatre; and that is pretty striking for a supposedly notable theatre company, and its alleged notable founder and leader, isn't it: not a word. All info about Rockas and her company comes basically from some ordinary contemporary reviews in the press, recycled by Rockas in the net thru flickr etc. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve found some archived London newspaper reviews. Had plans to do more research today if there’s time before I have to leave for the Wiki Conference. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 09:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per; the sources refer sufficiently to the theatre to confer independent notability. ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 31 October 2018 (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.