Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAle GAtes et al.


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

GAle GAtes et al.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable, now defunct, theatre company. Sources are vague and hardly refer to Gales gales et al, and don't really refer to it at all. Delete or at best, possible merge to Michael Counts. Has a very slight WP:TONE problem to boot.    Kadzi    (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep a pioneer in the field that received significant coverage in major media outlets and scholarly journals. Meets thresholds in Common claims of significance or importance of having a notable founder in Michael Counts and multiple notable members including Tom Fruin, Cynthia Hopkins, Kate Moran and Sam Gold (WP:CCSI). It is a rare achievement for a performance company to be reviewed in theater and art publications of record as was the case with this company. To call the sources vague is perplexing: the only way this criticism makes sense is if you read the headlines/titles only and not the articles themselves, and it is extremely rare for the highest quality newspapers and journals to mention names of performance companies in the headline of a review. To suggest merging the company's profile with the page of its founder is like suggesting that the page of the Talking Heads (also defunct) be merged with David Byrne's.  -Kbaker121 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep sources seem to check out, this clears the notability threshold and doesn't have any BLP issues (notwithstanding the living persons that have been involved in the troupe) that would heighten the bar, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless substantial further coverage of the the group itself is found. At the moment this does not meet WP:NCORP: of the three sources, the first does review a performance in some detail, but much of it is about Counts; the third is largely about him; and the second is not accessible. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, and that is not present in the page as it stands. A redirect to Michael Counts is a possible alternative to deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment see the talk page, where I added suggestions for additions as you suggested, including links to significant coverage and an expanded text with expanded citations. Do you want me to add these to the existing text now? - Kbaker121 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep based on sources discussed below. Delete It matters not at all that the company has notable founders, notability is not inherited. Similarly, reviews of performances (rare or otherwise) does nothing to establish the notability of the company unless the review contains in-depth information on the *company* which is the topic of this article. What is required are sources/references containing significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and those sources must also contain independent content and not interviews with company members talking about the company, or company announcements or press releases, etc. None of the references meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that do. As such, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Far from mattering not at all, according to WP: CCSI having a notable founder and notable members does matter in considerations of significance or importance. If there were a requirement for a performance review to include in-depth information on the company in order to establish notability, that would disqualify the overwhelming majority of reviews - and thus deprive theater and art professionals and enthusiasts of a wealth of invaluable and time-honored primary sources of information. The job of reviewers is to make a critical evaluation of a performance, not the company - in notable media such as The New York Times, these very different areas of interest are with extremely rare exceptions covered separately. In short, the exclusionary criteria that are being proposed here are incompatible with how the theater and art worlds actually work and how they themselves establish notability. Were the criteria described on this thread applied to the Wikipedia page for a theater company I know well and which is of unquestionable notability, it would be deleted. - Kbaker121 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Response You're misinterpreting and misquoting WP:CCSI which in turn relies on this RfC on reasons to refuse a Speedy Deletion A7. This isn't a speedy deletion A7 examination, this is an AfD where we go into detail on notability. Also, CCSI is an essay and doesn't carry the same weight as a guideline like WP:NCORP. You also say "the job of reviewers is to make a critical evaluation of a performance, not the company" which is true and explains why reviews don't (usually) establish the notability of the production company or the theatre although they may assist in establishing the notability of a performance or a show. The criteria for references to establishing the notability of organizations and companies is very straight-forward - find something that discusses the company in detail with original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If the topic is notable, somebody, somewhere, will have written about it.  HighKing++ 11:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Response I apologize for interpreting and quoting out of context - but I don't think I was misinterpreting and misquoting (in fact, not at all). How about this for the "something" you describe? "So Long Ago I Can't Remember: GAle GAtes et al. and the 1990s Immersive Theatre" published in Theatre History Studies/University of Alabama Press. This article was published in 2019, an indication of an enduring legacy which in my experience of working in the New York theatre and art worlds in the 2000s and 2010s for the Whitney Museum of American Art, Aperture Foundation and the International Contemporary Ensemble is happening in actuality. - Kbaker121 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not going to bother arguing about your misquoting and misinterpretation of CCSI. Whatever. Now the "something" you found is another matter. In my opinion this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as it discusses the organization in detail. Google Books makes most of it available here. I've also come across this book which is a weaker reference. You may have access to other sources. But based on your reference and the one I've found, I believe this topic meets the criteria for notability and I am reversing my !vote.  HighKing++ 17:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think the sources cites above are convincing for notability, especially when combined with having a notable founder and notable members. The article should be improved not deleted.   // Timothy ::  talk  18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.