Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Article sufficiently improved Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family opera initiative[edit]

Family opera initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable company. Lots of links, but most to either the company's own site or to "references" that really are nothing more than information about a name mentioned in the article, but not tying that name back to the company. Google hits are mostly the company itself or myspace or business listings. Google news hits are event announcements only (save for one NY Times review -- indicating POSSIBLE notability). Article borders on spam. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Online references are few, due to the fact that the opera world is not fully web integrated. the magazines which mostly discuss the company are not online and do not have achieves of their articles for further debate. the company itself is notable throughout the opera/theater world as are the artists and staff of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwass85 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Apparently some kind of theatrical troupe performing original musicals or operas. Possibly notable, but the entire article reads like a press release and would need to be rewritten completely even if it were notable: "The fat lady sings? EXPLODE her and all those images and preconceptions. These “opera-musicals” are accessible. They embrace an indigenous vernacular energy; they burst forth in our own American-ness; and they resonate with our own language. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they sound wonderful. I am a big fan of the arts myself. It is true though that it is very "selling" of them, but it just needs some good old formatting and rewording. I think it should stay up. I will also give some look into this troupe as I now have some interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graydengrian (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I will galdly change what needs to be changed to keep this notable organization on wikipedia. I am just not sure on how to do this. Make it less of a "sell" correct? I will work on that. What other suggestions are there? This company is wonderful. the people are great and they work very hard. They have been doing this work for years and years. I think they are significant and deserve to stay in Wikipedia. please tell me what to do so I can help them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwass85 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think it is absurd to delete this page or consider so. The artists working on these projects are major names. The current project, ANIMAL TALES, is the last significant work by George Plimpton. Grethe Barrett Holby is the Founder of AOP and a 15 year veteran of the industry. Eugenio Carmi, Eve Beglarian, Kitty Brazelton: these are all artists of weight. I hope a few of the bloggers here come with some knowledge of contemporary American music. Ridiculous to delete. Tipok (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a "blog"; it tries to be an online encyclopedia, and ideally our comments are directed towards discerning the presence or lack of encyclopedia-worthiness in articles discussed here.

I would be lying if I said that discussions among Wikipedia editors are entirely free of blog-like elements. We do have something of a shared culture here, and one aspect of the local culture is a fairly deep suspicion of promotion and self-promotion. The first draft of this article contained the sort of language that raised red flags because of these community values. My review of the current article indicates that much of that language seems to have been edited out. So far, so good.

Now, another community proverb holds that "notability is not inherited". An amateur pianist does not get into an encyclopedia because she's playing Mozart. This troupe may well perform works by notable composers without being notable in itself. The most basic criteria for inclusion, what we not entirely satisfactorily call "notability", requires substantial coverage of the troupe in question by disinterested third parties in reliable sources. I'm not convinced we're there yet, but this article seems a lot better than the version I first read did. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The productions (and collaborators) are notable. The article has a few references to independent, reliable sources, but it needs more. In the next couple of days, I'll see if I can some in specialist opera publications, but even now I think it qualifies as a weak keep. I strongly suggest the article's creator try to supply more as well. However, and this is a big "however", the article needs a major re-write. I've formatted it to at least conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style but I've also tagged it for instances of verbatim copy-paste from the official website and overly promotional tone. In the later instances, the material from their web site and associated blog has not been copied verbatim but it is such close paraphasing that it verges on copyvio. I also removed the multiple duplicate linkages both to relevant Wikipedia articles and to the official web site of FOI and those of its collaborators. I don't think this was intentional spam, just an inexperienced editor. It's also pretty obvious that the article's creator has a major conflict of interest. That is not a reason for deleting an article, but I strongly suggest that he and his collaborators read WP:COI for guidance on editing under these circumstances and that they bear in mind that a Wikipedia article is not an alternate web site for their organization. Its layout, tone, and content must conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Udate: I've completely re-written this, something I don't do unless I think an article is worth saving. I've also added more references and formatted the others. They're working in a niche area and genre and major online coverage isn't easy to come by, but in my view, the ones by Drozdowski, Filipski, Graeber, Maupin, and WNYC put them "over the line". Note also that the company doesn't just perform works by notable writers and composers, e.g. Kitty Brazelton, George Plimpton, Richard Peaslee, Billy Aronson, Rusty Magee, etc. they actually commission the works and produce their premieres. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice save Voceditenore. The article meets the notability requirements now at WP:Music and it is verified through multiple independent reliable sources.Nrswanson (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Family_opera_initiative&oldid=1068876276"