Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audio theatre

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 delete. Has been transwikied Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio theatre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "audio theatre" is one of many ("radio theater", "audio drama" etc.) synonyms for radio drama. If you write or produce a radio drama, an independent artform since the 1920s, it will stay a radio drama whoever will print, broadcast or publish it. To merge the article on radio drama into audio theatre contradicts all reliable references (Radio_drama#References). --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare the entire discussion of the article: Audio theatre and see this User talk:Soenke Rahn and see this discussion on a dictionary: http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=163112&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de (The reason for this discussion is clear, user of the dictionary seeing that dictionaries are not perfect.) most natives will say that Wiki-Updater is wrong, he is German like me and he don't like what natives will say him. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, users on the page means that audio theatre should be moved to audio drama. Happy Chrismas, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, it is very intersting that we have first a erase discussion there: wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#radio drama And a happy New Year, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crude argument. The nationality of the author should not matter. --76.208.144.4 (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am from Germany this would be an argument, also.--Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An argument for what? --76.208.144.4 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That, a none-naitiv will not know each usage for a word. But this was not the only argument. please see the links. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if the nominator isn't advocating deletion, but a move to audio drama. I'd oppose deletion but support a move; however, this isn't the right venue for a move discussion. I'd also oppose a merge with radio drama; I do believe that audio drama (irrespective of medium) is distinct from radio drama (which, properly spoken, is medium-dependent). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOR (see here). --Switch-to (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not a original research so say that a radio drama owns to 100% the same content like audio drama or audio theatre?
  The move on the simple english article was made of an German one, how strange
  look there: User talk:Kolja21
  Are you German? Your last edits I saw in the English Wikipedia were toppics in German areas! --Soenke Rahn (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you afraid of Germans ;-) I'm from L.A. --Switch-to (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol But, you know what I mean ;o) I thing it is the best that anybody will say from which he comes. Because this could be a reason for his own opinion. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not an expert on this subject, but the article does seem relevant, to me at least. Thats my opinion. I don't think it should be deleted.~~ --Switch-to (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion.[1] Please sign with your own name. --Switch-to (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which was stroken out was made by User:Queen of Swords ((talk)), this is to read in the history, seems to be a typing error. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any discussion relating to confusion over the article title has no bearing on whether the article should be deleted, as the article can always be moved/merged. Deletion is for the removal of content that does not meet the Wikipedia criteria, and at the moment, this only seems relevant for the lack of reliable sources; however, there does not appear to have been any effort made to find any, and the deletion policy only supports deletion of articles without reliable sources "for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" - weebiloobil (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC) _{PS - I'm English, but fluent in German}[reply]
Oppose - deletion or merging not warranted, but source needed (German Wikipedia?) Hugo999 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German article to audio drama is here to find, but looks in general different to both articles (including Old-time radio). And the German article owns only two references, but possibly general sources (not clear to see, because the section Literature is used frequently for Further reading). But it is possible that this list inspired the article audio theatre a little bit. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the moment Wiki-Updater 2.0 made a lot of edits to implement his view into the english wikipedia. So we have now a Category:2003 radio dramas (he made it) and Category:2003 audio plays (which was made by native speakers). A German on a mission? A lot of informations in the english Wikipedia used audio play or audio drama or audio theatre as the main word which included radio drama but not into the other direction. To change it would be a language cleaning, I suppose. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean with "a German on a mission". He is trying very hard. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is important, if native speakers which made important edits in this area will know that there is an erase discussion on a main article to the toppic, to help in this discussion, isn't it. The portals seems to be not visited and a lot of the users seems to be gone. I would say this is a special case, in other discussion this would be unimportant, because there are enough users active (and I hope that the users which are still today active can now help together to improve the articles.) A mission means that you will determinate your opinion and ignore the statements, especially on [2], also the statements which were made in the past to the question. – It is one thing to make a little article in the simple english wikipedia, to made a list like this simple:List of audio dramas in English speaking countries – Do you know that google will not find the simple english version. The simple english version is very unimportant. Another thing is to make a lot of edits which are contrary with the informations are before to find in the English Wikipedia. And do you think that it is not nice if you will say to me your first words "... sucks ..." (compare there)? Do you think that it is not strange that the person in the erase dicussion of the Wiktionary says that your position is realy unsourced. [3]--Soenke Rahn (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People, "oppose" is ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes for how to express yourselves unambiguously. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I see some ambiguousness on the few negatives to the article (delete) also, especially, if you compare it with the original discussions on the talk pages to the articles. --- I will not forget to say that the first statement which gives Wikiuploader 2.0 right, was an IP, and after I answered it was very swiftly that Wikiuploader 2.0 placed the erase discussion on it. And the first statement was again an IP. This happened in view moments. But all the other statements came with longer distance, like the time before. (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep on procedural grounds as no rationale for deletion has been given by the nominator. - Dravecky (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep note that Keep can include Merge or redirect (they are certainly not delete), which seems the likely longer term outcome. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to radio drama. The material is uncited shoot-from-the-hip stuff, describing the concept applied to modern times. The lack of inline references makes the text very low quality, so a merge will only use a small part of the article, whatever part can be found to be supported in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The word theatre is the wrong word to use for audio-only media. Audio drama describes the notional concept much better. The word theatre is about spectacle, about watching something with the eyes. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Radio drama. Article is simply an unsourced WP:CFORK of that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A statement of Absurdtrousers to the question for the discussion - he placed it on my site (I will not keep it back) here --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (temporarily at least). The merger of this article and that on Radio drama is currently under discussion with an aim both to improving this article's content and to achieving a better organization of Wikipedia's treatment of "audio drama" in general. I don't believe that deletion of this article while that discussion remains under way would be at all helpful. I agree with the point made by the original proposer that "audio drama" is, in reality, overwhelmingly radio drama and this fact needs to remain clear. For that reason, too, I do not support merging Radio drama into Audio theatre (the latter is, in my view, a poor title in any case). However, I believe that we need to sort out the questions raised by the merger proposal FIRST. it would be precipitate simply to delete the current Audio theatre article, for all its faults, before that work has been done. -- Picapica (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried already to "rescue" some of the article but one half is redundant, the other half unsourced. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the radio drama article it is the same, but you will have quotes for some unimportant quotes, he is also unsourced in generall. If it is right or not is another question. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on radio drama has 26 interwikilinks (Audio theatre 0) and is backed by 13 references + 7 books like:

Martin Banham: The Cambridge guide to theatre. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995
Tim Crook: Radio drama. Theory and practice. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.

Since you are from "Deutshland" as you wrote on your page (strange that a German don't know how to spell the name of his country), you can also read one of these books:

Karl Ladler: Hörspielforschung. Schnittpunkt zwischen Literatur, Medien und Ästhetik. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 2001.
Hans-Jürgen Krug: Kleine Geschichte des Hörspiels. 2. Aufl. Konstanz: UVK, 2008.

Read one (Krug's book has only 100 pp.) and then we can start discussing about the genre radio drama. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* To Deutshland this is not important. But you will find in the New English Oxford Dictionary the word Deutschland, Yes. I erased the "c" like in english = Englisch. (Do you know that Coverdale used douche vor deutsch (-: ) Take it with humor. Take it easy in general. (-: Yes, I am realy German.

The interwikis are not an important answer, in this question. It could be that interwikis are false linked (you know it) and I will not look into all wikipedia versions to see, whether it is an article to audio dramas which where aired in the radio and so on

How Mglovesfun said.

By the way, Do not think that this is only a discussion between me and you, a lot of natives said you are wrong !!!!!! --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to radio drama, no evidence that it's a distinct thing. Roscelese (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other case is also not. By the way: I erase the discussion now from my watchlist. If there are question anybody can contact me. If the article will survive I would help to make the article better, but in the moment I have not the time for it (I should make a work to the Duden dictionary). --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources indicating its a separate entity. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to radio drama Purple backpack89 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of one well know user the article has been imported to the German Wikipedia: de:Benutzer:Emeritus/Baustelle/Audio_theatre. It now can be deleted without any loss. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One time more he makes transparent, how he discussed ... I asked for this backup. This is a normal option in the German wikipedia, and I have reasons for it, but it is not my ego. (-: If there will placed a redrect on the article it will be a useless action, because my reason are in the this way that I think that it would be good if any person can see what was to read on it. The result of the discussion should be a result of native English speakers not of Germans in gernal, because it would be possible that Germans will implement a Calque into the English language. On the other Hand a German will not know anything about the English language. In the moment I think the discussion is very interesting and we get results. I will not interpret each answer and give contributions on it, especially the answers of natives. It is an question for the administrator how he will see the problem. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the general source of the article. It was to read in the history of the article. An agreement to use this paper is on the first page of it. In the paper is to read that audio theatre is not radio theatre and so on. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please do not ask me anything to the paper, I will not interpret it and I can not give more help. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:06, 30 December 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.