Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor rep acting dynasty

[edit]
Windsor rep acting dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, although of course some of the people named are notable. Appears to be part of a massive WP:COI promotional exercise relating to Brice Stratford, the Owle Schreame Awards, and just about anything connected with them. Numerous WP:SPA accounts are involved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point, but nonetheless, I'm going with keep - it is not just the individuals that are notable; the notable work done through the winsor theatre was done as a family unit, not just separately as a collection of individuals - the press at the (now unaffiliated) theatre's site attests to that.— Feast is Feast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Have just updated the article's references and citations to help support it further. For what it's worth, the peak period of this family and the Windsor repertory company was from the early 1930's to the early 1980's - consequently much of the supporting commentary is not available online. Does this discount it? the phrase "Windsor rep acting dynasty" was first used by John Counsell in his article "So Who Needs Subsidy, Anyway?" (Scottish Theatre, Inverkeithing, Scottish Theatre, Vol.2 No.3, May 1970) and was used regularly in the newspaper reviews (specifically the Windsor Express) and the theatre's programmes throughout the 70's and early 80's.
In terms of the significance of the family as a whole, the book "Counsell's Opinion" (by John Counsell, 1963) discusses it at great length, and the Genealogist's Magazine did a large feature on the family in 2002, connecting them with Hilary Tindall, John Loder and Roy Walker, and then did a follow-up in 2012 connecting them with Brice Stratford, James Stratford and Colin Jeavons. Jean Miller discusses the significance of the family as a whole in various interviews. Here is an illustrative excerpt from an interview with her for the British Library, in case you can't access any of them online:
(Blakely, Emily "Theatre Archive Project: Interview with Jean Miller" British Library 14 May 2008)
Well, my sister was a scenic artist and my brother-in-law was a very famous art director in films ... He was put up for an Oscar for Ryan’s Daughter. He made his name with Genevieve, I don’t suppose you’ve seen it? About the car who goes to Brighton. It’s a wonderful film. Anyway he made his name. He’d just come out of the Air Force when he made it and that was his first and it made his name. He did Fiddler on the Roof, all sorts of films, he worked for Disney, all sorts of things. So Michael acted, my brother-in-law was an art director, my sister was a scenic, my uncle and aunt were actors and directors, my two cousins were on the stage. Then Polly, my youngest daughter was until she had an accident. And her father-in-law - great grandfather-in-law...? grandfather-in-law! - was somebody called John Loder who was an Old Etonian Englishman and he went to Germany and Marlene Dietrich wanted somebody with a dinner jacket. And of course being an Old Etonian he had no money but he had all the right clothes and he was a very good looking man and he went into films, starting with Marlene Dietrich. And then he went to Hollywood and he was very famous but [is] forgotten now. He had five wives and one was the very famous Hedy Lamarr. Does that mean anything to you? It’s like saying he was married to Marilyn Monroe, practically, a very beautiful, sexy woman. So it’s all gone on round me.
Theatre Royal, Windsor(talk) 4:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Theatre Royal, Windsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
note: user above was a SPA contribs, blocked for violation of username policy [User_talk:Theatre_Royal,_Windsor|here] Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The family was clearly notable at some point, regardless of where they stand now. The article seems justified to me. We shouldn't let Wikipedia get distorted to only represent contemporary subjects, or those which just have a strong modern web presence.WalkingOnTheB(talk) 6:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Regardless of any other factors, the issue in question (as specified above) is solely one of Subject Notability. Let us address this systematically, referring to Wikipedia's notability guidelines throughout.
To establish notability, we must first find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", bearing in mind that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". We must first discount all which is not "independent of the subject" - so out goes anything written by any member of the Counsell family (nominal or extended), as well as anything produced by the Theatre Royal, Windsor itself (such as programme notes). Not that such materials are useless as citation or reference, rather they cannot be relied on specifically to gauge notability.
So what can? "reliable sources ... independent of the subject". Here follows a selection of such sources, with the nature of each source (local, national or international) specified. Each can be considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards, each can be considered independent according to Wikipedia's standards, each example can be considered significant coverage according to Wikipedia's standards, and each references the notability of the family as a unit, rather than a combination of notable individuals:
  • "Repertory Roundabout" Theatre World, Vol. 58, 1962 (national trade publication)
  • "Counsell and Kerridge Once More" The Times, Oct 10th, 1969 (national news)
  • "The Clan Continues" The Windsor Express, June 3rd, 1972 (local news)
  • "Obituary: John Counsell" The Times, February 27th, 1987 (national news)
  • McMullan, Henry. "The Windsor Repertory: an Acting Dynasty" West End & Regional Theatre Press, November 5th, 1989 (local publication)
  • "The New Redgraves? Don't Let Col Hear That!" Black Country Bugle, October 1st, 1998 (local news)
  • Eyre, Richard & Wright, Nicholas. "Changing Stages: A View of British Theatre in the Twentieth Century", Bloomsbury Publishing PLC 5 Nov 2001 (international publication)
  • "The Windsor Dynasty (not that one)" Genealogists' Magazine, 2002 (national journal)
  • Bailey, Jenna. "Can Any Mother Help Me?" Faber & Faber, 5 Aug 2011 (international publication)
  • "The Windsors Revisited" Genealogists' Magazine, 2012 (national journal)
I should point out that this is by no means an exhaustive list, but merely the result of initial research at a physical (rather than digital) university library. This initial, cursory list includes local, national and international publications at trade, academic and journalistic levels. I would also emphasize Wikipedia's guidelines, whereby "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."
Most importantly, I will specify Wikipedia's rule that "Sources do not have to be available online", and that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The significant coverage that this subject received in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's is enough to establish it as notable without any more recent coverage, and the fact that (due to the time of writing) such sources are rarely available online should not discount them or undermine their validity.
I believe that, having established this debate centres on the issue of notability, I have rigorously established that the subject of this article can be considered notable, using Wikipedia's notability guidelines throughout. Therefore, I move to keep. RoodEnd (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note, !vote above is the user's largest edit by far, and the detail is fairly incredible for someone not famiiar with this organization. Has been listed at SPI. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me the family by itself is not notable. Some of the actors are notable, the theater is notable, but the "dynasty" is not notable. I recommend placing any wikiworthy content into Theatre Royal, Windsor since the dynasty's head was the director there. I think the theatre stub would be improved by a section with some good information on this director and the notable actors that were part of his dynasty.Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would agree that the dynasty by itself do not seem to be of much note currently, but they certainly were in the past; I actually ended up here today because they are discussed in some published parliamentary papers from the 60's that I've been reviewing for work and I wanted to know more. I would slightly disagree with Bryce Carmony (talk)'s suggestion about moving wikiworthy content to Theatre Royal, Windsor, as much of what made the family notable (judging from what I read today) was not just their impact at that particular theatre, but also their work and influence in the west end theatres and (especially) in British provincial touring. It's hard, of course, to judge notability without being biased to our own knowledge, perspective, country and time, but I would say that if the government of the day thought them worthy of discussion and consultation they must have had some notability (I should specify that the references in these papers are primarily to the family's influence in the artistic and managerial infrastructure of nationally touring British theatre, and to a lesser extent on the same in the London west-end theatres. The Theatre Royal, Windsor is mentioned only in passing and is not really relevant to the points made). I think that Bryce Carmony (talk) is perfectly correct though when he says that the Theatre Royal, Windsor article could benefit from a section on the family; however I also think that the family's article could benefit from a section on their impact beyond that specific theatre (and in fact that may make their notability clearer).(edit: in fact, I'll go do that now! Gabby Road (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)) If the consensus does lead to deletion, perhaps a section on the dynasty could be placed at John Counsell (theatre director)? Gabby Road (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note this editor's first edit was sophisticated for a brand new user. all theater/acting related. Listed at SPI Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- perhaps with a better name. I am not sure what "Stratford family" is doing in the category, since beyond a bland statment that they are included, there is not coverage of Bryce Stratford in that article. In my view this is a legitimate category but needs purging: if they are a dynasty, there should be a common ancestor: I would not want to exclude spouses of descendants, but relatives of spouses would be going too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was partly a comment relating to the equivalent CFD discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- The dynasty seems to me to be defined as the relatives of John Counsell (theatre director) or Mary Kerridge involved in acting and related industries, and their relevant spouses. So far as notability goes, that seems fairly well established at this stage. So far as a new name... I dunno. I'm fine with "Windsor rep" acting dynasty - perhaps lengthen to the Windsor Repertory Acting Dynasty? This is the name that coverage refers to. It seems inappropriate to name the dynasty after John Counsell, as Mary Kerridge was just as significant a progenitor (the only difference is that she was a woman). No single surname is shared by enough of the dynasty to give it a real claim. Maybe the Counsell-Kerridge Acting Dynasty (but that's quite a mouthful, and if anything less clear). Elephantbronze (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything about it seems to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had originally performed a non-admin close on this as keep, since the notability requirements of this acting dynasty have clearly been met appeared to have been met at the time of clsoing. However, the nominator informed me that there was an ongoing sock puppet investigation regarding this AfD. In light of these facts, I do not believe it is appropriate for an non-admin to close this AfD, and request that an actual admin take over from here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the key sources for this article are not online, and it is a product of a knot of editors being discussed both at WP:COIN and WP:SPI, This AfD should not be closed until somebody can check the sources to VERIFY the content. I am going to try to get the library Tuesday night to find what I can get. If those sources check out the article can stay. But the title must go. There is no other article with such a title - we have Redgrave family, Dugazon family, Robin Fox family.. no "dynasties". If this survives deletion. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the title is a neologism, self-cited (and conveniently non-viewable) to the theatre itself and to the putative head (John Counsell) of the so-called "dynasty". Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I messed up when I closed this as keep. I have access to numerous journal and news data bases, and after some extensive searches I'm unable to actually find most of the sources listed in the above AfD discussion even though other articles from the time periods and publications come up. For example, "The Windsor Dynasty (not that one)", "The Windsors Revisited" and ""The New Redgraves? Don't Let Col Hear That!" seem to be fictitious. The sources I have been able to find either make only trivial mentions of the Windsors or give extensive coverage to specific individuals instead of the whole family. Also, I find it highly suspicious that that something could get coverage from multiple national journals, but not come up when searched for in JSTOR, Google Book, Google Scholar, and Google News. In light of this, I think the article should be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I have similarly long believed that many/most if not all of the non-viewable citations in the sock farm's other COI articles are similarly and conveniently fictitious. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Jytdog has verified that a specific reference added to two of the COI articles is fake: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Except for Peterkingiron's, every single "Keep" !vote in this AfD (and indeed everyone who has contributed to the article) is part of a massive SPA COI sock/meat farm, either in newly created accounts (some with some diversionary edits), or accounts created June–December 2014 (again, some with varying degrees of diversionary edits). A possible (but at this point not entirely certain) exception is Joseph2302, whose account was created at the time of the others (December 2014) but who either is very determined with his diversionary edits, or who is an innocent but very inexperienced bystander. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Windsor_rep_acting_dynasty&oldid=1068983051"