Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays)

Open for discussion

Here. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For plays that did not have award-winning productions on Broadway or in the West End: Notability should depend on factors related to the importance of the play. Did it have a long and successful run? Did it star Lawrence Olivier and lots of other A-list actors? Was it directed by a famous director? Did it tour extensively, and was it revived numerous times internationally to major venues? Any of these factors would add to the possibility of its being notable. Or, did it receive extensive critical comment? Do books about drama discuss it as an important development in drama? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the draft addresses all of these points. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty comprehensive to me. A few comments. There is an apparent typo or confusing formulation: look for two occurrences of "written directed". If that is in fact a term of art, as an American working in Off Off Broadway theater, I have no idea what it means. A response to something User Ssilvers said: I think a Broadway run = notability in itself, even without awards. Finally, the problematic contemporary theater articles, which I think this standard will address, often tend to be people just like me, writing articles on their own six performance productions which got reviewed in small online media if at all. I think there are a lot of small produced playwrights out there who don't meet Wikipedia general notability standards, myself included, and am comfortable this proposed standard will be a big help in sorting out which articles we keep. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have amended "written directed" to just "directed". I think this was just a typo. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about the typo. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Form of words used in guidleine

Excuse my butting in here, as I am not a editor who deals in theatre articles - though I have some experience of AmDram. I am a fellow traveller editor of another Wikiproject whose name need not be mentioned. Within that article we were discussing our own notability guideline and noted that it differed in style somewhat from most others. We approach our Guideline from a different angle. We first reiterate the requirements of GNG and then state cases where the GNG is likely to be satisfied. This is from out guideline

"As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for xxxxxxxx depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the xxxxxxx WikiProject is that the following types of xxxxxx are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion:"

There follows a list of things that might bring the subject to the attention of the aforemention reliable seconday sources.

Anyhow, to the point, would such a phrasing fit in with your draft guideline? Even if not, your opinions as to why would be useful as we have been discussing whether we should raise our guideline from Essay level to true Subject Specific Guideline status. Some of the opinion was that we should avoid doing this lest the criteria be used to establish a claim of notability for an article in the absence of the appropriate sourcing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this idea sets the bar high enough, Graeme. See my comment below about criterion #2. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative indicia test

I just added this idea, which I have been arguing for in various places for a long time: "In some cases, a play that does not precisely meet any of the criteria above, but which comes close to meeting several of them, may be considered notable. For example, if the play was produced at a major venue, such as Broadway or the West End, but it flopped, it could still be notable if it shows enough other indicia of notability, such as being directed by a notable director or stars notable actors, is given revivals thereafter by professional companies or receives a significant amount of critical or scholarly attention." -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple, non-trivial published mentions

I don't think that criterion #2 is tough enough. The fact that a play got a couple of newspaper reviews should not, by itself, make the play notable. Four critics could say that it's not a very good play - the critics have to review all the openings at major venues. I think this criterion should say that, if press coverage is what we are relying on to establish notability, then the press coverage needs to actually say that the play is important or was extremely well-received. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion open at the Village Pump

Greetings, everyone. You may be interested to know that a discussion has been opened at the Village Pump (here) about endorsing this text as the standard for theatrical plays' notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]