This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community. It is inactive but
retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the
talk page or start a discussion at the
village pump. |
This page in a nutshell: A play is generally notable if it
verifiably meets through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
|
This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a play should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a play warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.
These guidelines may be considered a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to plays, reflecting the core Wikipedia policies, including the following:
Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a play meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources.
"Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a play's merit. A play may be brilliantly written or performed, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an encyclopedia article about that play.
Though the concept of " play" is broadly defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: dramatic sketches or revues, although it does apply to librettos. Until specific guidelines are developed for these other types of publications, this guideline may be instructive by analogy.
The criteria set forth below apply to plays published in electronic form (or e-books) as well as hard-copy publications.
A play is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources at least one of the following criteria:
These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying plays that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a play meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the play.
Published plays should have at a minimum an ISBN (for those published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. For example, in the United States published plays are catalogued by the Library of Congress; United Kingdom at the British Library; Australia at the National Library of Australia; Canada at the Library and Archives Canada; France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries.
However, these are exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a play is notable, whereas a play which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—plays that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such plays should be made very clear. In some cases, a play that does not precisely meet any of the criteria above, but which comes close to meeting several of them, may be considered notable. For example, if the play was produced at a major venue, such as Broadway or the West End, but it flopped, it could still be notable if it shows enough other indicia of notability, such as being directed by a notable director or starring notable actors, is given revivals thereafter by professional companies or receives a significant amount of critical or scholarly attention.
In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability. [8] Exceptions do exist, however.
Taking the preceding threshold section into account, it should be noted that many vanity press plays are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, and may be found through a Google Book Search, none of which implies they are notable.
It should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or another interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.
A published play's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a play must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a play's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability or non-notability.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about plays that are not yet published or produced are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the play is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the play will be performed, which sources include the title of the play and an approximate date of production.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of plays upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of plays written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed, and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern plays may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a common sense approach which considers whether the play has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently produced, the fame that the play enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of theatre.
It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on plays should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a play may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the play, and it is often the case that despite the play being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do, of course, exist—especially in the case of very famous plays. For example, few would argue that William Shakespeare's play Hamlet does not warrant a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Prince Hamlet. When a play has been split too finely to support the notability of individual subtopics, merging content back into the play article is appropriate.
In some situations, where the play itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the play is not notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the play in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that play.
This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community. It is inactive but
retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the
talk page or start a discussion at the
village pump. |
This page in a nutshell: A play is generally notable if it
verifiably meets through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
|
This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a play should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a play warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.
These guidelines may be considered a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to plays, reflecting the core Wikipedia policies, including the following:
Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a play meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources.
"Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a play's merit. A play may be brilliantly written or performed, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an encyclopedia article about that play.
Though the concept of " play" is broadly defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: dramatic sketches or revues, although it does apply to librettos. Until specific guidelines are developed for these other types of publications, this guideline may be instructive by analogy.
The criteria set forth below apply to plays published in electronic form (or e-books) as well as hard-copy publications.
A play is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources at least one of the following criteria:
These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying plays that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a play meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the play.
Published plays should have at a minimum an ISBN (for those published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. For example, in the United States published plays are catalogued by the Library of Congress; United Kingdom at the British Library; Australia at the National Library of Australia; Canada at the Library and Archives Canada; France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries.
However, these are exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a play is notable, whereas a play which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—plays that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such plays should be made very clear. In some cases, a play that does not precisely meet any of the criteria above, but which comes close to meeting several of them, may be considered notable. For example, if the play was produced at a major venue, such as Broadway or the West End, but it flopped, it could still be notable if it shows enough other indicia of notability, such as being directed by a notable director or starring notable actors, is given revivals thereafter by professional companies or receives a significant amount of critical or scholarly attention.
In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability. [8] Exceptions do exist, however.
Taking the preceding threshold section into account, it should be noted that many vanity press plays are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, and may be found through a Google Book Search, none of which implies they are notable.
It should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or another interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.
A published play's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a play must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a play's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability or non-notability.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about plays that are not yet published or produced are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the play is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the play will be performed, which sources include the title of the play and an approximate date of production.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of plays upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of plays written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed, and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern plays may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a common sense approach which considers whether the play has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently produced, the fame that the play enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of theatre.
It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on plays should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a play may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the play, and it is often the case that despite the play being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do, of course, exist—especially in the case of very famous plays. For example, few would argue that William Shakespeare's play Hamlet does not warrant a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Prince Hamlet. When a play has been split too finely to support the notability of individual subtopics, merging content back into the play article is appropriate.
In some situations, where the play itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the play is not notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the play in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that play.