Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaverse Shakespeare Company

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metaverse Shakespeare Company

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:ORG. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Internet. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's probably hard to document Second Life stuff from over a decade ago, but if we have an article somewhere that talks about digital adaptations of Shakespeare, a redirect could be justified per [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A WP:BEFORE turns up a decent amount of coverage. Subject is frequently referenced as an example of digital Shakespeare productions, there's coverage of their theater in SL, as well as some of their tasks and processes, history and impact. Meets the guidelines of WP:NORG. Google scholar shows several hits of coverage with citations, and this is not sciences so other indexes might show more. [2][3]. Google books also show some distinct hits [4]. Also some coverage in tech news [5]. —siroχo 20:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about which of those sources meet WP:SIRS? Thanks. JaggedHamster (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
Scholarly sources
Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life, Pages 151- 152 (scroll up in link, too)] has in-depth coverage discussing their theater, multiple productions, including audience participation etc, and their virtual academy and curriculum. The source is independent, it has 157 citations in google scholar (likely higher in other indexes according to WP:SCHOLAR#Citation metrics suggesting reliability, and is secondary.

Edinburgh Companion to Shakespeare and the Arts - Page 573 has more than a passing reference, but less in-depth, mentioning their theater and a bit about production process. It's Published by Edinburg University Press so it should be reliable/independent, and is a secondary source.

Shakespeare and the Digital World: Redefining Scholarship and Practice Page 221 also has more than passing reference, using them as an example of a virtual space where audiences could gather to watch a performances in a virtual theater.

Education-based scholar-adjacent resources
"The impact of the characteristics of a virtual environment on performance: concepts, constraints and complications." from Learning in Virtual Environments International Conference. [6] goes extremely in-depth on the effectiveness of the methods used in a performance produced by the company, including images of the company's theater from Second Life. This is a conference journal with several citations so should be reliable. The paper is half-credited to a participant, so it's not fully secondary, but see the sub-bullet below:
This above paper is also referenced by A Practical Guide to Using Second Life in Higher Education [7]. This book would fully qualify as a secondary and independent source.

Drama Education with Digital Technology [8] has more then a passing reference, is secondary/independent, and should be reliable based on the publisher Bloomsbury Publishing

Non-scholarly sources
The Unofficial Guide to Building Your Business in the Second Life Virtual World Page 186 describes them in-depth including the quality and care of their theater, troupe and production, and a bit about their sponsorship model/incentives. It's published by the American Management Association, suggesting it's reliable. It appears entirely independent/secondary but it's a bit harder to be 100% sure.
There are quite a few more, but I think this should be sufficient to demonstrate notability. People take their Shakespeare seriously. It's a bit hard to filter, because it seems a prominent scholar of Shakespeare had initials S.L., but if you perform a search like [9] you should be able to find more. —siro χ o 23:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources compiled by Siroxo above meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siro's excellent work above, on which I can't improve, which I tried to do! Central and Adams (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2023 (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.