Talk:Desktop Theater

Deletion or inclusion?
There is a PROD by User:Miniapolis on this article claiming that refs do not meet WP:42, adding that Desktop Theater is a non-notable theater group.

I am an inclusionist, but that's not the main reason I object to the proposed deletion of this article.

There are a number of reliable, independent, secondary sources, clearly indicating the notability of the subject of this article. Here are some of them, from a quick search through Google Scholar:


 * Glesner, Julia. "Internet Performances as Site-Specific Art." Body Space and Technology 3.
 * Jamieson, Helen Varley. "» From paper and ink to pixels and links «." Open Page (2001).
 * LaFarge, Antoinette, et al. "SHIFT-CTRL." Leonardo 35.1 (2002): 5-13.
 * Levin, Laura. "Avatar Happenings: Activating Liveness in Online Environments." Canadian Theatre Review 127 (2006): 11.
 * McCarthy, Sean. "Giving Sam a Second Life: Beckett's Plays in the Age of Convergent Media." Texas Studies in Literature & Language 51.1 (2009): 102-117.
 * Saltz, David Z. "‘Digital Literary Studies: Performance and Interaction." Companion to Digital Literary Studies (2013): 336-348. ISBN 978-1-405148641
 * St-Jacques, Marie-Douce. "Leonardo Network News." Leonardo 40.3 (2007): 314-315.
 * Wilson, Martha. "What Franklin Furnace learned from presenting and producing live art on the Internet, from 1996 to now." Leonardo 38.3 (2005): 193-200.

I hope to include (some of) these in the article as soon as I have some time, unless someone else does it before I get to it.

Furthermore, there seems to be a PROD on this article (in its present state) due to the fact that it was created "as part of class project". As a Wikipedian heavily involved in the education sector, it is my opinion that the failings of the original creators to adhere to WP guidelines should not be used as an argument for deletion of any article. This can be counterproductive to the many Education-related initiatives supported by the global Wikimedia movement, so I would discourage anyone from making such an argument, if at all possible.

Happy New Year! :-) --ToniSant (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ASSIGN, and feel free to incorporate those sources into the article. The bars for verifiability and notability are the same for class projects as elsewhere in the 'pedia. Happy New Year and all the best,  Mini  apolis  15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I see it, WP:ASSIGN is a little too cautious with regards to student contributions, however, I can fully understand some of the reasons why experienced editors would have a different perspective on student contributions than educators. Anyway, that's an argument beyond what's really going on with this article, so I'll just leave it at that, especially because I obviously agree completely with the essential need to enforce the necessary verifiability and notability standards across the board, regardless of whether students are involved or not in writing/editing an article. Thanks. --ToniSant (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)