Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Theatre

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Theatre. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Theatre|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Theatre. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Theatre/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Theatre

James Gow (writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability and verification issues since 2016. Time to decide as a community whether this person is notable.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Face to Face (play)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is an interview with the playwright which lacks independence from the subject. No details on any notable productions or critical commentary. Not clear this play passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reviews in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Also reviews of the 2014 production here, here, here. Maybe some sigcov here, hard to say. This seems to be a paper analyzing the play. I think that's clear GNG. On top of that, the 2011 film adaptation (which has its own article) got a ton of reviews (i.e. here, here, here and here), many of which probably talk a bit about the play. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Eddie891. Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verging on speedy. Yes it's a terrible article but it can be edited. Judge the notability of the subject by the actual notability of the subject, not by the current state of the article. Even if not notable this could be redirected or merged to the film adaptation article so no reason for deletion. As for this play, at its first run in 1999 it was covered by Ben Holgate in the Australian and by Debra Jopson, Joyce Morgan and Bryce Hallett in the Sydney Morning Herald. When it went to Melbourne the next year Helen Thomson reviewed it in The Age. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the text of some of these and will update the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anzel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional article about a nonnotable TV presenter and actress written by an editor blocked for UPE. It's already been PROD'd or I would have tagged it for proposed deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Theatre, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Per Nom. Gratefulking (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked for socking. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the non-primary sources have significant coverage. The only one close to counting towards the GNG is the Daily Record. A search for sources mainly turned up unreliable tabloids and summaries of TV episodes, with routine internet drama [1] being the best source I saw. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Besnard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article. The French wiki page is tagged for sourcing issues. Not clear this topic meets WP:GNG. Was created by an editor permanently blocked for misrepresenting sources/adding unverifiable or false material (ie making up content). Not saying that is what happened in this particular article, but that past history makes the need to verify this content/source the article more pressing than in other cases if we are going to keep this in main space. 4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and France. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at BnF alone tells me that he is notable. I tried to find references, - some are still missing but I have other projects. Help wanted. The are digitilazations of some plays, others are at Google books, some won prizes, one was immediately made a silent film. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added a few sources from Google Books. Looking at Newspapers.com, I see that reviews of his plays were published in papers in Cleveland, Ohio in 1927 [2], London, England in 1924 [3], and Montreal, Canada in 1942 [4]. The last is in French, but the fact that there are two long reviews in English, in far-flung places, is to me a strong indication that there would be plenty of reviews published in Paris. I'll add more refs, if I have time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added coverage Seems notable both as playwright and critic. -Mushy Yank. 22:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thanks to RebeccaGreen and Mushy Yank for rescuing this. Good work.4meter4 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Gerda Arendt, who did a lot of editing before Mushy Yank and I looked at it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes notability with multiple reviews on subject's plays. RangersRus (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Stone

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The only independent source which addresses the film in a scholarly way is the Murray OUP source which frankly is not significant under the criteria at WP:NFSOURCES. There's no critical commentary, and it consists only of a credits list and a brief one sentence plot summary. It describes the film as a "Tele film" but gives no named network or broadcast date. I searched TROVE database of Australian newspapers, magazines, and journals at the National Library of Australia and found only primary documents covering production costs as it appears the film was made through a government grant for developing young film makers (the production company Australian Film Theatre appears to have been a short lived government sponsored company that made only three works in 1985 before disappearing). I can find no evidence that this film was ever actually aired on television. It's very possible that it was never seen as there are no reviews in media archives or in google news, google scholar, jstor, ebscoe, proquest, etc, and no sources naming when it aired or on what network. The only thing I can find is credit listings that the film was made and went through a post production period. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the director~~/original play~~, for now.-Mushy Yank. 12:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Gurr, the playwright. Not seeing much attention for the film or play but it does get mentioned as being by him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I couldn't find anything about the film via a Google or Newspapers.com search. I didn't see much for the play either. It might be pre-internet coverage, but I'm not really finding much to bolster my confidence in that either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a redirect to Michael Gurr is a reasonable WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth_Alexander_(actress)#Director or Delete. Fails to meet WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Galotti

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:No original research. While this is clearly a notable play, the current article lacks sourcing to contemporary/reliable materials which address the play directly and in detail. It is written like a personal essay and is rife with original analysis/synthesis. Only two sources are used, both of which are historical writings from the 18th century and are used in a way that engages with original analysis of those materials. While it's true that removing the OR and sourcing the article is feasible (it would pass WP:GNG), it would be best to Wikipedia:Delete the junk/WP:TNT in this case as it would require a complete rewrite to make it read with encyclopedic tone rather than an essay with original analysis. Sometimes it is best to start over. 4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this article is bad enough to merit TNT. Sure, it needs work, but I'm not convinced we are benefitted here by completely deleting the article and waiting for someone to re-write it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this is in WP:TNT territory. It does needs some work, so hopefully a German speaker takes interest in translating some of the content across from the corresponding article in German, but it's a long way from unsalvageable. MCE89 (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a note to those commenting, but the article has already been massively improved by Ssilvers (thank you!) who has worked to remove some of the worst material that was in the article at the time of nomination. This has certainly helped with addressing the tone/essay/OR problem.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No comment necessary, as the nomination itself opens with "[...] this is clearly a notable play". -Mushy Yank. 12:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatie (play)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been tagged as unreferenced since 2016. The French wiki article is also sparse in its sourcing. Not clear this work passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely it should be obvious that a 2011 play that was adapted into a major motion picture, is widely described as a "hit" and a "success" in articles about the film (e.g. [5] [6] [7]) and has had international runs in recent years is probably going to be notable. It's somewhat difficult to separate reviews of the play from reviews of the film by the same name, but contemporary reviews of the play include these in Le Figaro, Le Monde, and Les Echos. There are also a number of reviews from its Australian run, including these: [8] [9] [10]. The play is also discussed in detail in some coverage of its film adaptation, such as this extended piece of analysis that covers both the film and the play. I'll try to find time to expand the article and add some of these sources, but this should be kept as deletion is not cleanup. MCE89 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per MCE89. Advising the nominator to do BEFOREs and not take pages to AfDs for cleanup reasons. -Mushy Yank. 09:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that a play, novel or whatever was made into a film does not make it notable. Where did it premiere? How many people have ever seen it? Did it have any major productions? None are described in this article. I would say that before someone posts an article to Wikipedia, they sould be required to add at least some sources that cover basic information. Nothing would be lost by deleting this sad stub, which is entirely repeated in the film article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sigcov identified by MCE89. I have edited the page to include 4 sources and a bit more detail. Zzz plant (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Juan in Hell (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Relies entirely on primary materials and IMDb.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant awards and nominations, including one Goya win for best actor. Just check the sources on the corresponding articles in Spanish and French. Can we stop these cleanup nominations, please? https://www.elmundo.es/especiales/2006/01/cultura/goya/actores/guillen.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160305044259/http://www.cinecec.com/EDITOR/premios/palmares/1990.htm -Mushy Yank. 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and France. -Mushy Yank. 23:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not seems like a cursory search for sources has been carried out in advance of the AfD request. --Asqueladd (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following recent edits, this seems notable. Spartathenian (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Asqueladd's improvements to the article. Madeleine (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vimazoluleka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them in media -- film reviews, evidence of noteworthy film awards, production coverage, that sort of thing.
But the only footnotes here are an article about the director's death which briefly namechecks this film without being about the film in any non-trivial sense (and doesn't even support the statement about the film's postproduction that it's footnoting), a press release from the film's own production studio, and a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get the film over GNG all by itself.
Further, even though the film was released in 2017 according to IMDB and the dating of the footnotes agrees with that, the creator wrote about this as if it were an "upcoming" film slated for release in 2024 -- and although I've corrected that nonsense already, there are other statements here (some completely unsourced, and the postproduction claim that isn't supported by the director's obituary) that may also be in question if they can't be properly verified. (I've also had to remove two other footnotes that had nothing to do with this film at all, and were present solely to falsely assert, because of the misrepresented release date, that it would be a "posthumous" work for cast and crew who died after 2017.)
As most coverage would likely be in Spanish, and the film actually came out long enough ago that the very low number of GNG-worthy Google hits might not be the whole story, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with good access to databases of Venezuelan media coverage from the 2010s can find enough solid sourcing to salvage it -- but especially given that the article contained significant falsehoods that just IMDb alone was able to smoke out, it really needs much better sourcing than it's got right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz. The article needs cleanup. I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En. -Mushy Yank. 05:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it is about a play (or a musical? This is not clear), but the infobox is a film infobox showing the date of the film's release, and full of incorrect info, if this is an article about a stage work. The article is a mishmash of useless and conflicting information, if it is about a stage work, and it contains a bloated table showing the entire film cast, but little information about the stage work's production. It would be better to delete this article and write an article about the play (or musical?) instead that makes some sense. I tried to do some rewriting on the article to reorganize it and try to make sense of it, but all my edits were reverted without, apparently, considering any of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afds are not for cleanup and I am the one who reverted your single edit to it because it was imv detrimental to what I thought was an improvement of the page; I thought that especially during this Afd your edit was making less clear what the page is about and how it is notable. The musical play is notable, and I have, since nomination, made it the primary subject of the page, which your edit made unclear; the film being its adaptation, the fact that it's covered in a section with an infobox does not seem to be a problem that deserves deletion. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 21:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think you can argue whether the sources pass sigcov thresholds, but to me it seems like the play meets GNG. The movie might not, but I don't think that's relevant to whether the adaptation is covered or not here in relation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see bunch of online articles in Spanish which are not included within the article and I assume it at least fulfills WP:NBASIC. Here are few examples 1 2 3 4 Instant History (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently added sources, and to address the question of whether factual inaccuracies are serious enough to warrant deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The recently added sources from @Mushy Yank and @Instant History appear to have enough significant coverage to meet notability. Madeleine (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedway

Theatre