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.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Miami New Drama

Miami New Drama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article has twice been declined at AfC [1] [2] and moved to draft when created in mainspace. [3]. The latest creation in mainspace is substantially the same as the previous copy moved to draft. John B123 ( talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. John B123 ( talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Coverage of a theater company's productions is coverage of the theater company. There's more than enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. This is a waste of time and should be withdrawn or speedy kept. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Lots of coverage; several notable directors and playwrights, including Christopher Renshaw. Easily satisfies NCORP. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Sufficient coverage for the article to stand. I think it's time to drop the stick. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and "coverage" (whether "lots of" or "sufficient") is not included as among the criteria for establishing notability. The content of the coverage is important - it must be in-depth ( WP:CORPDEPTH and have "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND. Having read the references, none of the ones in the article meet the criteria. Can you post a small number of links here to articles you believe gives reason to keep this topic? HighKing ⁺⁺ 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Notability is not inherited and coverage of the productions does not bestow notability on the production company any more than it would bestow notability on the director or the theatre. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and there isn't a single reference that provides in-depth information on the company as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Founded by notable founders and has received extensive coverage from Miami Herald. Mohanabhil ( talk) 06:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Mohanabhil, just to point out, "founded by notable founders" is not a reason to keep - notability is not inherited. Also, "received extensive coverage" is vague at best. There are a number of references in the article, all based on statements/interviews with the founders and this fails WP:ORGIND as this is not considered "Independent Content". Do you have a specific reference in mind that you believe meets the criteria for notability? If so, please post a link here. HighKing ⁺⁺ 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's a notable and important theater company and has a good amount of coverage, especially for a company that's only 4 years old. It has even been on PBS: [4]. Coverage will only increase as time goes on. Softlavender ( talk) 03:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I've already noted in my !vote above that not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and yet not only has not one single Keep !voter put forward any rebuttals, two more Keep !voters have appeared who also either don't understand the criteria in NCORP, or who perhaps foolishly believe that the closing admin will simply count !votes. Just FYI, this isn't a !vote counting exercise. If you believe a reference exists that meets the criteria, post the link here so others can comment. For example, the PBS link posted above fails the criteria - it is an interview with a person connected with the company and provides zero information on the company itself since the discussion is about the production/play, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect - notability of the theatre is not inherited to the production company. 1292simon ( talk) 22:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody has said or even implied that it is. This is a notable theater company with tons of coverage. Softlavender ( talk) 15:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Here are some sample articles that show this theater company easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. These articles are about the theater company, not about the theater. A theater is just an otherwise empty building (and the Colony Theater hosts other arts, not just Miami New Drama). The significant coverage in these articles is about Miami New Drama, not about (or in a couple of cases not just about) the productions. Softlavender ( talk) 16:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Response Softlavender, nope. References must meet both the WP:CORPDEPTH *and* the WP:ORGIND sections of WP:NCORP (at the same time). There also isn't a need to provide 9 references (that's refbombing) as you could have simply posted what you consider to be the best 3 (especially as there's nothing new here - they're already all in the article). I'll comment briefly on each one below:
    • This from American Theatre is already in the article and you linked to it above twice in your list. I'll spend more time explaining why this reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. The article starts by saying how the theatre was only steps from a large BLM protest and then quotes the artistic director on the issue. There is zero in-depth information on the company other than one sentence which states Founded by playwright and director Hausmann and playwright/director Moisés Kaufman, Miami New Drama is a nonprofit professional theatre company committed to artistic excellence and groundbreaking work unique to the diverse city of Miami, with a vision of theatre as a powerful form of social engagement. You'll find minor variations of this sentence in hundreds of similar "articles" on this company. This is not in-depth information but a generic statement. The article then continues with a narrative switching between quotations from people involved with the company and then essentially framing the comment into the narritive. This is the epitome of churnalism and its essentially PR. This reference fails WP:NCORP for the lack of any in-depth details on the company and fails WP:ORGIND for the lack of any "Independent Content" on the company.
    • This from the Miami Herald is already in the article. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only mentions-in-passing. It fails WP:ORGIND as the information on the company has clearly been provided by the company.
    • This from Miama New Times is entirely based on an announcement by the City of Miami Beach (it says it in the article). Peppered with quotes from involved people, nothing original. Fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Broadway World is based on two pieces of news - the second is based on an announcement by the Knight Foundation although it isn't clear on where to attribute the news about staying in the same venue for the next 5 years. It's news but there's no attributed journalist (just "the newsdesk") but more importantly there is no Independent Content as per WP:ORGIND. It's the same formula of quotations and text framing the quotes into the narritive.
    • This from Times of Israel is based on an interview with a company executive and provides detail on his past and life journet. There is zero "Independent Content" concerning the company, fails WP:ORGIND
    • This from Theater Mania is entirely based on an interview, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This second from American Theatre has zero in-depth information on the company (other than what plays are current and the obligatory quotation from the company executive), fails WP:CORPDEPTH
    • This from NBC News is mainly about the company executive and only mentions the company in passing with zero in-depth information. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
    • In my opinion, there's already plenty said about this company in the article on Michel Hausmann and it this company is not notable in its own right. Sure, it exists and is putting on great theatre, but if it was really notable, somebody other than local newspapers or news channels would have written about it. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • HighKing, at this point you are making up rules, not adequately reading the articles (try doing Control+F miami new drama on each), and just doubling down on your initial negativity. I can't even take you seriously at this point, especially when you say "there's already plenty said about this company in the article on Michel Hausmann and it this company is not notable in its own right". Softlavender ( talk) 23:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Softlavender, I think you'll find that I pretty much only participate in AfDs for organizations and not for other topics. Here's stats on the latest 200 AfD's I've participated in. So telling me that I'm "making up rules" is pretty lame and nonsensical considering that my stats show my !vote agrees with consensus over 87% of the time whereas your stats show agreement only 68% of the time. So I'd guess I've probably a more in-depth understanding of this stuff that you do. I've tried to explain to you why exactly the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. If you prefer to disagree, fine, but this isn't a !vote counting exercise and the closing admin will weigh the arguments. So far, I've responded to every reference and rather than you pointing out which parts of the guidelines you think I'm misinterpreting, or why, you've resorted to name calling. Doesn't look great. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Concurring with Softlavender and Ssilvers. I don't think an outfit for which NewsBank finds hundreds of mentions – in Spanish as well as English – can be dismissed as not notable. Tim riley talk 21:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • "hundreds of 'mentions'" isn't one of the criteria. You only need a minimum of two which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ⁺⁺
    • How many would you like? Just check out the detailed coverage in NewsBank. Tim riley talk 21:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • It isn't about the volume. There could be thousands and the topic might still fail the criteria for establishing notability. Check out WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND (in relation to Independent Content) and WP:CORPDEPTH (in relation to in-depth coverage). If you believe there are some articles that meet those criteria, post a link so we can take a look ourselves. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• By all means. Link here. You will need a subscription but I imagine an expert like you will have that already. Tim riley talk 19:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• OK, so you can't (or won't) post anything other than a vague wave in the general direction of an archive. I've already looked at hundreds of articles mentioning "Miami New Drama" and none meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I've asked for specific references and not a single Keep !voter can post one other than using WP:ASSERTN excuses. Fine. I'm happy to leave this to a closing admin. I'll keep an eye and if anyone posts an actual link to something concrete, I'll take a look. Not trying to argue, was hoping to engage constructively but I guess that takes two. HighKing ⁺⁺ 20:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• You really are terribly hard to please. You ask for a link and I provide one. I have done precisely what you asked: why not look at some of the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Because your argument is the equivalent of "but there's loads of links on Google". I'm not going to browbeat anyone. It's a simple request and one which any good faith Keep !voters would happily provide. HighKing ⁺⁺ 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• I can answer your simple request: your above analysis of the NBC News article " Theater that reflects a changing America? Venezuelan Michel Hausmann is doing it in Miami" is incorrect. It has lots of information about the company and its development. It has a focus on the founder and artistic director, because that is what news articles do when they write about a theater company. If you want to say that a mid-size national news article directly about the subject of this article is insignificant then I suppose that's your right, but please don't harangue people who disagree. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• No, saying " NewsBank finds hundreds of mentions – in Spanish as well as English" is not "the equivalent of 'but there's loads of links on Google'." -- Softlavender ( talk) 05:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep An important young professional theatre company with important productions and directors which has received extensive coverage, not only in local papers but also national and international sources. Jack1956 ( talk) 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - despite the declined RfCs, it has significant coverage and was founded by notable people. Foxnpichu ( talk) 14:39, 23 September 2020 (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.