Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major opera composers (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Based on the striking of the only delete vote, and the withdrawal of the nomination. I would say projectify, but am unsure if that is a valid choice. Per SK#1. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of major opera composers

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

Pure WP:OR - more specifically , WP:SYNTH. Names have been cobbled together from ten sources, on a basis for which no justification is given, some of them with pretensions to be works of musical scholarship, others just general encyclopaedias, history books or other website lists. One of the website lists is now a dead link. Some of the sources date from the 1980s and 1990s and none is more recent than 2002 (the Rough Guide to Opera, not a reliable academic source). There is no attempt to define what is meant by a 'major opera composer' , indeed it is not clear whether the core topic is 'major opera' or 'major composers'. Gobbets of musical history are included here and there - most of these are from two sources, the Viking Opera Guide which dates from the 1990s, and the Thames and Hudson book of the 1980s, Opera: A Concise History. Neither of these have great pretensions today to being leading or notable sources. The inclusion in the list of minor composers such as Smyth, Pfitzner, Pepusch and Schreker gives them inappropriate prominence. In short, an unencylopaedic merger of information glued together from randomly assembled sources. I started trying to clean it up but then realized that it just wasn't worth it. Smerus (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator - given peferences for 'projectiying' and/or discusson at WP:Opera. See discussion below--Smerus (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, notable. A useful counterpart to the bloated and overwhelming Opera corpus, which doesn't even have an easily understood title. Unlike more subjective or nebulous subjects or terms, I don't think it's any great feat to determine what constitutes a major opera composer and what doesn't, and any disputes can be resolved on the article's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with the criticisms Smerus has raised. However, I do think some sort of editorial criteria could be made to solve those issues, and a useful high quality list could potentially be put together. Maybe the opera project can come together on this one to improve the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading the above two comments, would 4meter4 and Softlavender perhaps clarify what they understand by the article title? If, for example we are talking of Composers of major operas, we are not talking about the same thing as Major composers of opera. Leoncavallo and Mascagni for example might qualify in the first category (assuming 'major' is interpreted as 'frequently performed') but not in the second. Which raises the issue, in either case, of how we could define, and authoritatively reference, the word 'major'? To me it seems this could be a rather greater feat than Softlavender assumes. The operas most frequently performed are not necessarily by consensus the greatest operas. In Operabase's top 50 (for example), works by Johann Strauss II, Kalman, Lehar and Humperdinck appear, but (for example) not those of Mussorgsky, Borodin, Handel, Monteverdi don't. And Beethoven just makes it at no. 50. Or if we look at the 50 composers most often performed, those not making it include (for example) Borodin, Gershwin, Saint-Saens, Hindemith, Meyerbeer, Halevy, Schoenberg.....If other editors are prepared to work on these questions then I will gladly withdraw the nomination and work with them to reconstitute the article. But if the attitude is 'keep because somebody could probably solve the problems at some indeterminate time', then let's delete it now.--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are content issues, and if you take issue with a specific inclusion(s) or omission(s), discussion(s) belong on the article's talk page. I for one have no problem with the article content in its current form. Also, the previous AfD for the article closed early (was withdrawn) as a SNOW Keep. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to participate in a discussion of this kind on the article's talk page. I don't think an AFD is the correct forum for this conversation at this point. Honestly, I wish this concern had been raised at the opera project page before being brought to AFD. I would like to know what User:Voceditenore, User:Folantin, User:Antandrus, User:Kosboot, and User:Gerda Arendt have to say about this article. I would like to get a consensus of what direction the project wants to move as a whole when it comes to this article. It may be that there is a strong consensus to restructure the article, or that there is support to leave it alone, or that deletion is the best option. Regardless, that conservation should have been had first before bringing it to AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree to moving the discussion to project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- agree with Gerda and others -- it should be discussed at the opera project. There may be a way forward in rethinking the list or just updating it. Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy in these circumstances to withdraw the AfD nomination and look forward to the discussion.--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I feel the entire concept of the article needs to be rethought. What does "a major opera composer" mean and by what criteria is this determined? Number of operas composed? Number of operas recorded? Number of operas performed? These are all variable criteria. If one wants to be objective, one could use "number of operas composed" (an answer to the question "who composed the most operas?") though I'm sure there would be a number of obscure composers, while a few significant composers wouldn't make the list. If one were to use criteria of number of operas performed or recorded, that information is difficult to ascertain (does one include only commercial recordings?) What about composers who composed prodigiously but of which there are no recordings? (generally I feel one should not use recordings as a basis for anything other than recordings). I guess I feel the idea of an article on "opera composers" is fallacious and that the content should be rolled into the article opera. - kosboot (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kosboot: Aren't all the questions you raise here better discussed on the talk page as suggested by (Softlavender—4meter4—Gerda Arendt—Antandrus—Smerus)? If you strike your delete !vote, someone can close this debate under WP:SK#1. Thanks. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list, started in 2002 and one of the Opera Project's earliest collaborations, is a relic from the "olden days" when this sort of approach and writing style was much more acceptable. It no longer is, in my view. Ideally, it needs not only a significant re-write, but also a complete re-conception, and probably re-titling. One thing I would ask is that at at the very least, this article be "projectified" rather than deleted outright, i.e. moved with its talk pages, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/List of major opera composers. It contains much useful information and is a valuable artefact of our project's history. The talk page archives are fascinating, and it was even the subject of an Arbcom case 9 years ago. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys, you all know me, amenability is my middle name! (Silent at the back there!) So what say we projectify the article as suggested by VdT (with whom I fully agree), I withdraw the AfD, and we discuss at WikiProject Opera how, if at all, the topic can be treated so as to be consistent with the present standards of Wikipedia?--Smerus (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually too late to withdraw because your initial withdrawal was not done properly and now there is already a delete !vote. See WP:WDAFD. If Kosboot withdraws his Delete !vote, you could properly withdraw using the steps in the WP:WDAFD; but if he doesn't, this will just have to go through the process and await an administrative close after the full 7 days. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the option to projectify the article if that is a viable option at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2015 (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.