Talk:Adelaide Repertory Theatre

Replacement stub created to avoid copyright issue

Paul foord 12:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Validtory of Information

All information is supplied by me ( Stephen Dean) a board member for 12 years and activily involved with the company for 20 years.

Stephendean 09:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In any event, Wikipedia does not allow original research, but instead requires information to be verifiable to reliable sources.--cj | talk 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

All information can be found in the State Library and the Performing Arts Collection. Also the Rep has extensive archives. Thanks:) Stephendean 09:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

COI and notability

This article is clearly written from a biased source. A more balanced perspective is required. I have issues with All cast and crew are volunteers who give freely of their time to present professional productions to the theatre going public of Adelaide. This is a very misleading statement. In Australia, there is a clear distinction between amateur theatre (which this company is) and professional theatre. These are not professionally-trained actors giving up their time to work for the company, but amateur performers sharing a hobby. The article implies otherwise. In keeping with wiki's standards for presenting accurate information, the article should not be written by a member of the board citing the theatre company's own archives as credible sources. This is especially true when wiki doesn't yet have an article on either the State Theatre Company of South Australia or Brink Productions, which are in fact the leading theatre companies in Adelaide.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)).

Further to this discussion; perhaps articles such as this should be merged with amateur theatre? (Moviefreak26 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia. Even the associated "AusStage" link describes this company as amateur. There are literally hundreds of amateur and community-based theatre companies in the world and wikipedia should not be a forum for them to promote themselves, especially with a total lack of third party, non-biased research. Perhaps merging articles like this with amateur theatre is a sensible option, but I would argue that they don't belong here at all. We don't list local cricket teams or football teams, do we?(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

"An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia." Not only does this statement pigeonhole any company as culturally insignificant (inadvertently denying the existence of the Adelaide Repertory Theatre prior to the creation of the State Theatre Company of South Australia, and subsequently Brink Productions, thereby disregarding the significant role it played in the South Australian Arts from 1908 onwards), but its use of the term 'amateur' is itself amatuerish, and a strong indication of that gross human tendency known fairly as 'intuition'. The working definition of the term amateur, as supported by the South Australian press, is 'for love, not money', without categorising the calibre of its work; and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia isn't yet a business directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primo veritas (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but is it a place for people to promote irrelevent information? Or hobbies? Does all the press in South Australia support this view? If so (and it's highly quesitonable) that would be out of step with the way amateur theatre is regarded elsewhere, indeed in the rest of the world. But, each to their own. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

"An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia" - see WP:Notability/WP:Reliable sources - these are used to decide what belongs in Wikipedia. Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those guidelines demand more than this article provides. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

And can anybody verify that this is "the longest surviving theatre company in the southern hemisphere." Can an amateur company even be classed as such? Vote for deletion!(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

An amateur theatre company can meet the notability guidelines. I believe the article now shows this. Paul foord (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a touchy issue on this board, but clearly the tag has been improperly removed in this case. (Moviefreak26 (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)).

I removed it and disagree. Only minor notability but I think there are adequate independent sources. Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

To 129.96.130.210: the comment about Southern Hemisphere has been replaced with Australia. This is an equally contentious statement. I am certain there are older companies. The reference cites a biased source. But, I think the wider question you're asking is... "can amateur theatre companies be classed the same as professional theatre companies?" They certainly would not be classed together in reputable theatrical publications (I work at a uni library), or by reviewers (my sister is one), or by the mainstream media. So, why does Wikipedia not follow the same standards? That said, I don't think deletion is a fair response. I vote for merger.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

See the discussion at User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied from "User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies" Adelaide Repertory Theatre & your proposal of merger of amateur theatre companies ==

There is a template for merging articles. {{merge}} or {{Mergeto}}. However, what do you want to merge Adelaide Repertory Theatre to? The Amateur theatre article is not very good, the Repertory theatre article is much better but may not be relevant. Community theatre is probably also relevant. Theatre in Australia is only a stub and needs expansion.

If you are suggesting creating a new merged article then do so, are you proposing a new Amateur theatre in South Australia/Amateur theatre in Australia/Australian amateur theatre article? However that may not justify redirecting "Adelaide Repertory Theatre" to that article. If you believe the deletion as non notable is appropriate then place {{AFD}} on the article page. I expect "Adelaide Repertory Theatre" would be kept, as having local notability. I have no association with the company.

Useful references are Wikipedia:Notability & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Theater may be a useful reference.

You may also want to look at Category:Australian theatre companies, there is a major need is for more articles.

Paul foord (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on Category:Australian theatre companies, there was a stub on Patch Theatre Company Paul foord (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find that reviewers review amateur and professional productions and you will often see them together in the print media. The same reviewer will see both amateur and pro productions and they do not often distinguish between the two. Since the Rep has had a major influence on the performing arts in Adelaide surely it then has historical importance. some well known people have performed or directed Rep plays over the years. these professional people are happy to be involved. Names such as Keith Michell, frank ford, benton Whittle etc. --Stephendean (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality/Notability

The neutrality of this article is highly questionable and the article does not meet the notability guidelines as provided. Wikipedia cannot, and should not, list all the random amateur theatre companies in the world(129.96.252.38 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

So you have a problem with amateur theatre, Adelaide Repertory Theatre appears to have a number claims to notability fairly clearly stated. The recent addition of the Alan Brissenden newspaper article attests to that. (Alan Brissenden is a critic also published in The Australian.) Paul foord (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And that one article makes it noteworthy for an international record? Vote for deletion! (129.96.130.46 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

It seems to me that 129.96.130.46 is a hater of the Adelaide Repertory Theatre company. Surely an encyclopaedia should have information about all theatre companies if it is provided. Why should it only contain info about professional companies. Amateur companies have provided much to the world in the area of theatre. Why should historical information be deleted. Stephendean (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Notability and POV tags - there are multiple secondary reliable sources on which the article draws. Paul foord (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With all the enthusiastic deleting Paul does, I am amazed this article is staying. Are you a member of this company, Paul? Are you authorized to remove those tags without open, democratic discussion? To 129.96.130 and Stephendean, I think you both make good points and maybe the solution is to add a list of amateur companies to the amateur theatre page? I agree with: Wikipedia cannot, and should not, list all the random amateur theatre companies in the world and I think most people (outside of amateur theatre circles) would feel the same way. Wikipedia is meant to be a worldclass record of information! No other proper encylopedia would store info of this kind and present it with such importance. This company is obviously not notable outside of a limited circle (people overseas certainly aren't writing about it), and nowhere near historically relevent (that was a pretty big stretch haha!) BUT I also see Stephendean's point that amateur theatre has its place. So why not list these very small, local companies as part of the amateur theatre page? Isn't that fair? (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I just scrolled up and realized this has already been suggested. Sorry. I also scrolled up and saw that Stephen Dean is a BOARD MEMBER. That's a bit fishy. (58.160.172.57 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC))