TonyGWard

Welcome!

Hello, TonyGWard, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Genesis Theatre, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dajasj (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Genesis Theatre

The article Genesis Theatre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable enough, as I cannot find relevant sources. Appears to be original work

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dajasj (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Genesis Theatre for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article Genesis Theatre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis Theatre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Dajasj (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Response about proposed Genesis Theatre for deletion

The article is definitely not original content.

There was an amateur theatre group by this name in the late 1970's/early 1980's.

The article links to a website containing pictures, programmes etc. http://www.genesistheatre.co.uk/shows/hair/index.html

There is a large number of photographs which prove the existence of the group.

Former members of the group include Louis Emmerick (from Brookside) and Mike Shaft (BBC Radio presenter). There have been discussions on BBC radio about the group that mention the wikipedia article and external website.

Here is a Manchester Evening News article dated February 1978 which mentions a Genesis Theatre show.

File:New-article.jpg

I totally believe it has existed. However, I do not believe independent sources have written about it in such a manner that it is notable enough for Wikipedia. With original work I meant to refer to original research. Dajasj (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, it is best to respond here. Dajasj (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned that is a factually inaccurate statement. Please see the wikipedia article you reference which clearly states that main stream news paper articles are reliable sources. Therefore this article meets wikipedia's original research criteria.

Yes they are reliable sources, but you have included none of them in the article. The article image you include to the right is only a local agenda. Dajasj (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I have also nominated the image, because I believe it is copyright infringement. Dajasj (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned more than three times, there are plenty of reliable sources linked from the article.

The article clearly meets Wikipedia standards (this has been the case for over a decade).

The image is an old newspaper article and additional proof. It is not a copyright infringement because the information was not on the article, it was provided as evidence. If you are forcing it to be taken down then you are clearly biased as you are making it impossible to provide evidence. This was a local theatre group and your rejecting a source because it was from a local mainstream newspaper? That makes no sense.

If you refuse to acknowledge facts then I will be forced to raise a formal complaint.

You are still allowed to link to the image as proof, but uploading the image is copryright infringement. The fact that the information is publicly available is irrelevant (unless you mean the paper has released it under suitable license, but I see no indication on Commons).

And again, you link two sources, which might be reliable, but are not independent. On these websites I don't find any sources that convince me of the notability, but in the end I am not the one who will judge the nomination.

I don't see how I am biased. I simply don't believe this does not meet the Wikipedia standards. The reason it has been online for so long, might be because rarely anyone checks out the page. But maybe I am wrong about the page, the results of the nomination will tell. I do acknowledge all "your" facts, but again, I am not convinced by them. I hope you can take this all a bit less personal, because that is not my intention. Dajasj (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I see you changed your response. If you upload it to the Commons without permission of the copyright holder, that is still copyright infringement. Dajasj (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources are independent, here is just a brief sample: http://www.genesistheatre.co.uk/biog/alanratcliff/index.html http://www.genesistheatre.co.uk/shows/hair/index.html http://www.genesistheatre.co.uk/shows/stag/index.html http://www.genesistheatre.co.uk/biog/anitaking/index.html

The original members are now elderly with limited IT skills, so they are forced to ask someone else to host them.

You are clearly biased because your arguments are nonsensical.

For the second time a local group will only appear in local mainstream media. Your argument about copyright also makes it impossible for counter evidence to be provided; again nonsensical and biased. You claim the sources not independent; again nonsensical and biased. The sources are independent - take a look at the different pictures from multiple shows and with different programmes it is impossible for them to come from one source.

These facts are undeniable, but your not convinced by them? Again biased.

Whilst this isn't a personal to me - it is to the 30-50 people who view that Theatre Group as a highlight of their musical career.

I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. We have a fundamental different view of the guidelines (original research, notability, independent), copyright laws and the goal of Wikipedia. Calling my arguments "nonsensical" and "biased" all the time isn't a good basis for a discussion. Anyway, it is up to others to decide, so it is best to present your case there. Have a nice evening. Dajasj (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Original research - definitely, there's 6 members of the original group who have provided their accounts. Notability - several members have gone on to national prominence. Independent - 6 different accounts (plus newspaper articles) is independent

Rejecting sources from a local newspaper for a local group is nonsensical. You are not convinced by facts - that is biased.

I'm sorry you are unhappy with the language used, but there are clear reasons for it.

NB I've spoken to the musical director of Genesis Theatre. He has letters from Pete Townsend and Jeff Wayne regarding Genesis Theatre. To be frank I am disgusted by this treatment by Wikipedia. I was considering donating to Wikipedia but I will absolutely not now.

Proposed deletion of File:Gt reunion2002.jpg

The file File:Gt reunion2002.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)