Talk:Adelaide Repertory Theatre

message: Paul foord 12:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement stub created to avoid copyright issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Validtory of Information

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: COI and notability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality/Notability 

message: Well, I AM from Adelaide, and I have a degree in creative arts, so I know this area extremely well, and I can say with total confidence that this is an amateur company, a little known company, and the press referenced is all local and of very little consequence. Here are some objective points from the guidelines to this site:
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
As a member of the board you are not expressing a neutral point of view
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. 
Your view is very clearly biased. You are a boardmember and you are presenting this local company as world news. It is not. It is not even newsworthy in South Australia. The messenger is a small, local paper and for a company to have existed that long and only have that level of press further confirms this is not a significant theatrical company and it is dishonest and disrespectful to those who know theatre to claim otherwise. Can you find articles published interstate or overseas to support your biased view that this company has real relavence equal to such professional companies as Brink and State Theatre? 
From the guidelines:
Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. 
As for your comment And is Wikipedia really a quality encyclopaedia, that has yet to be determined. the people who frequent this board expect reliable, non-biased, relevent, truthful and accurate information. If you don't support the ideals of the site, why post here at all? Are you just interested in adversting and promotion?
To quote from the guidelines again: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 
So, no, with all due respect, this article does not belong. It obviously does not satisfy guidelines for inclusion. Perhaps instead of accusing people on this board of "censorship" you should provide some real evidence to support the existence of this article? Or why not stick to your own website site to advertise your company? (129.96.113.36 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: **The fact that anonymous editors claim authority to decide the Adelaide Repertory Theatre is unprofessional and not notable does not change the fact that there are independent reliable sources attesting to its notability. Paul foord (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of 'the opinion of teachers, scholars and experts' holds weight based on the evidence they can draw on and bring to the article. The Arts SA Ruby Award Adelaide Repertory Theatre, Sustained contribution (organisations) 2008 Winner, Ruby Awards, ARTS SA and the review by [Alan Brissenden, (16 Oct 2008), Stirring the intellectual pot, The Adelaide Review] are what I was particularly thinking of. Arts SA being the South Australian Govenment arts agency and whilst the Brissenden review is not in The Australian where he regularly publishes reviews of dance, he is I expect a relable source. Paul foord (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Does Wiki include other amateur theatre companies? If not, there is a notability issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.195.131 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This question has been discussed earlier. There are a number of WP:RS attesting to the notability of the Company. See :Category:Amateur theatre companies in England for English companies. Paul foord (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability again

message: Substituted at 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adelaide Repertory Theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604093025/http://www.adelaidecritics.com:80/html/theawards.html to http://www.adelaidecritics.com/html/theawards.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adelaide Repertory Theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/arts_entertainment.php?subaction=showfull&id=1222303971&archive=&start_from=&ucat=18&
*Added  tag to http://www.arts.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/2008_AbaF_Ruby_Book.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706100014/http://www.pacsa.asn.au/pac/cf/compinfo.cfm?id=13 to http://www.pacsa.asn.au/pac/cf/compinfo.cfm?id=13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified