 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 April 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Sources seem to render the initial argument weak. Shimeru (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Marriott[edit]
- Tim Marriott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Known for starring in The Brittas Empire, but that's about it, so fails WP:ENT No.1 : significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. On a cursory search I couldn't find any evidence of a significant West End writing career post-Brittas. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was able to find two of his plays meeting mary and pete-n-me, reviewed in RS. I have no idea if this constitutes a significant contribution as a playwright. I have added the sources to the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... so he has a bit more going for than the 52 episodes of The Brittas Empire he did from 1991-1997, with his plays being reviewed. Perhaps someone else who is pushing at ENT just a wee bit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Marriott seems like the real thing to me. The theater credits - even by themselves - makes this subject notable. Evalpor (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (reading Sodabottle's links): The Guardian's review of Meeting Mary states "Tim Marriott's play ... quite the worst I've seen this year ... is inept in almost every respect." The Stage Review of Pete ‘n’ Me, while crediting Marriot's piece as "skilfully woven", devotes almost the entire page to reviewing everything but the writing. In addition, Meeting Mary was staged at the 70 seat Jermyn Street Theatre, while Pete ‘n’ Me was at the 80 seat New End Theatre, these are not exactly high profile West End venues, these are fringe venues. These facts don't seem like evidence of a notable playwright to me, certainly not the required evidence of a "significant role" in the world of theatre. MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a particular reviewer thinks of Marriott's play should mean nothing in here. The very fact of a published review, favorable or unfavorable, attests to notability. Provincial theatrical venues are perfectly legitimate professional showcases for any playwright. Evalpor (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Evalpor is correct. A theater review need not be only positive in order to be considered. A theatrical production is not a film release and is not judged the same way. While a film might run in thousands of movie houses during its theatrical release, a stage play usually is in one theater at a time, and is then critiqued by area reviewers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read ENT to mean that Wikipedia deems any playwright who simply gets a couple of plays to be staged in minor theatres, is automatically notable, especially not without considering the works impact. If I've missed some other theatre specific guideline or precedent, show me. I will freely admit, stage writer bios are not my forte, I brought him to Afd primarily as a one piece television actor, having not found what I considered significant feats in other works, per ENT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor does anyone else engaged in this discussion, MickMacNee. It just so happens that an actor whom you believe to be non-notable as an actor also happens to be a working playwright. I'm not convinced that Tim Marriott is non-notable as an actor, but what IS clear is that his additional efforts as a playwright make his non-notability far less probable. You have yourself admitted that playwrights are not your chief area of concern, so I don't think you should presume to know just what is or isn't involved in getting a theatre company to produce an original play. Furthermore, to assume that regional newspaper reviews have no voice in the overall culture of theatrical production is, at least in my view, highly problematic. Broadway bound plays very often are "tried out" on the road, as I'm sure you know. What I am certain of is this: the process of evaluating these articles is itself more important than the conclusions that are reached. If it turns out that Tim Marriott's article remains in Wikipedia following the conclusion of this discussion, I'm sure that the article will have been improved due to the extra attention you brought to it. Evalpor (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read ENT to mean that Wikipedia deems any playwright who simply gets a couple of plays to be staged in minor theatres, is automatically notable, especially not without considering the works impact. If I've missed some other theatre specific guideline or precedent, show me. I will freely admit, stage writer bios are not my forte, I brought him to Afd primarily as a one piece television actor, having not found what I considered significant feats in other works, per ENT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Evalpor is correct. A theater review need not be only positive in order to be considered. A theatrical production is not a film release and is not judged the same way. While a film might run in thousands of movie houses during its theatrical release, a stage play usually is in one theater at a time, and is then critiqued by area reviewers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a particular reviewer thinks of Marriott's play should mean nothing in here. The very fact of a published review, favorable or unfavorable, attests to notability. Provincial theatrical venues are perfectly legitimate professional showcases for any playwright. Evalpor (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (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.