Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gene93k (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 2 April 2015 (Listing at WP:DELSORT under Lists of people (FWDS)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:33, 2 April 2015 by Gene93k (talk | contribs) (Listing at WP:DELSORT under Lists of people (FWDS))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Windsor rep acting dynasty

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)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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)

  • 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).
  • 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 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.
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's standards, each can be considered independent according to Misplaced Pages's standards, each example can be considered significant coverage according to Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines throughout. Therefore, I move to keep. RoodEnd (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep -- perhaps with a better name. I am not sure whatr "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)
That was partly a comment relating to the equivalent CFD discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Categories: