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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of important operas[edit]

This article appears to be a breach of WP:OR. There is no definition of "important" provided. If a good external source exists, per WP:CITE then there ought to be an article under that specific title. The whole article is unreferenced. --Mais oui! 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A significant number of members of the WP:WPO project discussed and contributed to this page. (There are four Talk pages of discussions.) I don't think there is any policy on WP that states that adjectives like 'important' require to be specially defined. other than by ordinary dictionary meanings. The page is indeed referenced. Some people regard any list like this one as 'original research' but lists serve various purposes (e.g. introducing the subject and quantifying it etc.) and WP would be the poorer if all lists were removed because of the pedantic interpretation of WP policy. - Kleinzach 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives are inherently subjective. It violates WP:NPOV to call an opera "important" and it violates WP:OR to arrange these "important" operas into a list, all without sources. Other people, in properly cited references, can say these operas are important - Wikipedia cannot. (And yes, I know there's a "sources" section, but it consists of generic reference works and no direct citations are provided to prove these books say what the article says they say.) wikipediatrix 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to respect the views of the WP:WPO project. Please read the Talk pages. Don't ask for references of a type that obviously don't exist. Suggesting the deletion of a useful reference page that other people have spent time writing - rather than suggesting improvements - is negative and destructive. - Kleinzach 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:OR. wikipediatrix 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if we can't say anything is are "important" then we can't say anything is "notable" either, which would kinda break the deletion process. Kappa 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" is an established Wikipedia term of usage. "Important" is not. "Notable" simply means, in Wikipedia parlance, that verifiable sources have noted it. No judgment or endorsement is implied. "Important", on the other hand, is an opinion, an endorsement, a judgment. wikipediatrix 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is thoroughly sourced. The lack of a definition for "important" is a legitimate concern, but I believe it is a curable defect. Marc Shepherd 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article "thoroughly sourced"? There isn't a single citation on the page. Rattling off the names of three or four very general opera books at the bottom of the page verifies absolutely nothing. wikipediatrix 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this discussion is not to assess whether the connection of the text to the sources is as tight as it could be. Wikipedia is full of articles that no one would propose for deletion, that provide a general list of references rather than footnoting every fact. If it should turn out that "important" is truly an unsourced POV, perhaps my vote would change. But as this article appears to represent serious work, my vote is to give the editors a chance to fix what is wrong with it. Deletion is an extreme outcome, which should be reserved for articles that are irredeemable. Marc Shepherd 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not the point of an AfD: I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it, had you not stated such a falsehood as "This article is thoroughly sourced" in the article's defense in the first place. wikipediatrix 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reason is provided for every addition. Dev920 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Show us some examples. wikipediatrix 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot of room to quote the entire article here, but every entry has a short sentence after it explaining why it's important. Seems good enough to me. Dev920 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry does not have a sentence after it. Are we looking at the same article? And without proper sources (you know, from, like, real Opera critics?) those opinionated sentences are meaningless. wikipediatrix 02:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources provided are appropriate for the topic. Being referenced does not mean the same thing as having inline citations. An article can be referenced without having inline citations, and I would say the references given are appropriate. The reason the sources are general opera books is because the topic is an important general opera topic. There are two other lists of operas, one including all the operas which have articles on Wikipedia, and one which is working on being a comprehensive list of operas, and this I think cuts down significantly on the POV concerns. The reason I think this list is needed is that the subject of opera is so huge, and the number of operas is so huge, that for a neophyte a list including all of these would be overwhelming, and frankly, not very useful. If a person comes to WP and wants to find an opera, not knowing anything about opera, this list is far more helpful than the list of all the operas or the category system. Mak (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A useful resource for those of us who aren't opera experts. The project should come up with, and state in the introduction, an objective definition of 'important' (eg first example of some trend, frequently performed, critical acclaim, noted in textbooks &c&c) which would remove the criticisms noted above. Espresso Addict 21:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many milestones and achievements are documented. Opera is a dying art, so it is useful for those who are not acquainted with it. Important isn't a good word to use in a title, but the article steers clear of POV problems. SliceNYC 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the following can be provided: A definition of "important" (which is probably about 60% there already) and (much more importantly) specific citations for the claims being bandied around. To take only the first section as an illustrative example, we have "first operatic masterwork" - says who? "breaks new dramatic and musical ground in a number of ways" - such as? again, says who? "often regarded as Monteverdi's masterpiece" - by whom is it thus regarded? "masterpiece" - says who? "Considered a masterwork" - by whom? And so it goes. If the references are in the general works cited, it shouldn't be hard to footnote them to the text. If they're not there, we've got WP:OR on our hands here. BigHaz 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a cooperative effort. The list was limited to about 100 popular and historically significant works spanning the four hundred years of opera development. There was a selection procedure (see the Talk Pages). Regarding your specific questions, the list provides links to the articles on the operas where the information is explained in more detail. There is no original research. Citations in Grove could be provided, but providing these at the list level rather than in the individual opera articles would be strange and inappropriate. - Kleinzach 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Look me in the eye and tell me "Almost as perfectly constructed as Verdi’s Falstaff" is not WP:OR. It is not the business of Wikipedia articles to opinionatedly compare one opera to another. And there's many more examples where this one came from. wikipediatrix 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost as perfectly constructed as Verdi’s Falstaff" is not WP:OR. It's an (orthodox) explanation/encapsulation of why the opera is popular for an arts encyclopedia entry. It's not an original (or personal) opinion (or research). Comparisons are normal (in the arts) as a way of contextualizing works, movements and events. While we strive for objectivity, some subjectivity will always be present (e.g. deciding to allocate 93 pages to Mozart and 26 to Gluck). - Kleinzach 10:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for BigHaz: there are plenty opf sources for Monteverdi's Orfeo being the first operatic masterwork, including Howard Goodall. This list is (right now) valid and sourced. Just zis Guy you know? 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for my liking, although I still can't shake the feeling that there might still be some minor issues hanging around. Consider my deletion sentiment withdrawn. BigHaz 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might fruitfully add a note somewhere saying that Grove is the primary general reference, and that references for the claims are provided in the individual articles. Espresso Addict 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have divided the sources into 'Principal reference' and 'Other sources' following your suggestion.

I am not sure about your other idea. Take for example the annotation on *1786 The Marriage of Figaro (Vienna): an Italian opera buffa by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It was based on a popular French comedy of the same name by Pierre Beaumarchais, satirizing the aristocracy just prior to the French Revolution. Isn't this adequately referenced by the links provided? - Kleinzach 00:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks factual, but wikipediatrix points out below a number of POV phraseologies that should be sourced -- somewhere -- or removed. Espresso Addict 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing some of the worst examples she has noted, however this is not a simple five-minute job. The page represents a substantial amount of information and IMO detailed criticisms (which are welcomed) should be on the Talk page rather than here. - Kleinzach 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of 'important' added

I have added this definition to the page: Important in this context is used of works that are significant for historical or artistic reasons, or because of the position that they occupy in the repertory. I hope that goes some way to remove the concerns expressed. - Kleinzach 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep maybe a slight change of title is merited, but there is no doubt that this is well researched and correct. It's always reassuring to find Peri's Euridice listed, it's sufficiently obscure that its inclusion is a good sign of adequate research :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definition added. Explanations of importance are liberally provided. While they usually aren't in-line sourced, the claims are verifiable: usually backed up in one of the general sources, or else in the opera article. Fireplace 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Definition or no definition, I still maintain the title - and therefore the fundamental premise of the article - is POV/OR. At the very least, it should be renamed. The article itself, if it passes AfD, will need to be overhauled, because it is written like a music review - very unencyclopedic - and filled with rampant opinions, observations, WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, with language like "A moving work", "Mozart takes on Gluck at his own game with this richly scored work", "memorable", "ethereal beauty of Mozart’s perfect setting", "hilarious comedy", "The Wolf's Glen scene will still send shivers down your spine", "arguably the best", "all guarantee an exciting night at the opera", "We won't reveal what happens in the Epilogue", "touching moments lead the audience to the inevitable, heartrending conclusion", etc., etc. I mean, come on. This is not an NPOV article in title, premise, or content in any way, shape or form. wikipediatrix 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix has identified some of the larger embarrassments. My own view is that the article is redeemable, but could use some work. I see that a majority of the keeps seem to be largely satisfied with its current form. Marc Shepherd 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix is right to point out very unencyclopedic language used in some entries. This page is far from finished and some entries are unsatisfactory. (I pointed this out myself a couple of weeks ago.) However we need to get this in perspective. This is not a discussion about how to improve the article (written on the Talk page). We are talking about whether the page should be deleted. I suggest that if every imperfect page on WP was put up for deletion, the whole wider project would become impossible. - Kleinzach 10:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated above, I'm well aware that these concerns aren't AfD criteria: I only bring them up in passing because some editors here are talking about the article as if it's there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and to me this may or may not be indicative that some people's "Keep" votes are being made in a vacuum. I think I've made it abundantly clear that my reasons for choosing "Delete" are rooted in the article's title and its premise, which are fundamentally POV/OR. wikipediatrix 13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm sure concerns re original research and references are being taken onboard. Would be more appropriate at List of notable operas. Thanks/wangi 11:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with a name change is that every opera at Category:Operas (500+) is "notable" (a precondition for the individual article's existence). There is already such a list at Opera corpus. The purpose of the "important" list is to selectively pick operas that are of particular importance in the history of the art (rather than being notable for its occasional contemporary performance or being written by a famous composer). I think the current title makes sense. Fireplace 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cogent argument. It would be ridiculous to call it a List of particularly notable operas or Extremely notable operas. - Kleinzach 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it yourself: "selectively pick operas". That, by definition, is Original Research. wikipediatrix 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to delete every exclusive list on WP? If so, I respect your argument but I think such a policy would be a disaster for WP. - Kleinzach 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:OR if the selection is entirely the product of the editors' minds, and not backed up by verifiable sources. Marc Shepherd 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that rationale, I could create List of stupid people as long as I found sources for someone saying each of the people are stupid. But if I chose to include George W. Bush on the list but not Bill Clinton, even though there are no shortage of sources for people calling both stupid.... well, you see where this is going. The act of compiling the list under an opinionated title is inherently OR. Let's stick with Category:Operas which serves the purpose. wikipediatrix 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Fireplace has just implied Category:Operas serves an altogether different purpose. Please have a look at this category. - Kleinzach 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what makes an opera "important" enough to be on the list, as opposed to the category? All these operas must be relatively important if they have their own articles, obviously. Are you saying I can, and should, take any category - say, Category:Pizzerias - and extrapolate from that, a new list called List of important pizzarias? Important to who? By what criteria? By whose opinion? wikipediatrix

• Comment the decision to include anything in a Wikipedia article requires original synthesis. Are you saying that a selective list is always POV? Just because editors are involved in choosing what to include does not make the list inherently POV, because they're basing it on mainstream understandings of the works' significance. I could, for example, if I had a source, add to the Chopin article that his eyes are blue. It might be verifiable and true, but it is no POV not to include it, because it's not important to a person's understanding of Chopin. The same is true of this list -- decisions are made based on what the mainstream understanding of a works significance is. If we completely copied another reference work's list, that would be copyright infringement. Mak (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't heard me. It's not just the fact that this is a list. It's an arbitrary list gathered under an opinionated title with vague criteria. I don't see how I can make it any clearer. Even List of operas considered historically important would be better than its current title. wikipediatrix 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about List of operas in the standard opera repertory. It may be much easier to reach a more objective consensus on the operas listed from standard sources, and the list would not need any explanations as to why each opera is "important". --Ssilvers 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion about the standard opera repertory in the past. The consensus was that no agreed list could be produced except by a process of horse trading. American, English, French, German etc. ideas are all different. - Kleinzach 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...also, an opera might be historically important without being part of any standard rep. This is true of probably 1/3 of the current list. Fireplace 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, what is the thread that holds this list together, and keeps it from being an indiscriminate collection? wikipediatrix 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to include works which are important for whatever reason for a person's understanding of opera. This includes operas which are considered by some to be "part of the standard repertoire", such as La boheme, or works which show a significant shift in the way operas are written or performed, such as Armide. There is no one criteria which make a work important to the development of opera, but there are agreed-upon benchmarks, and I think it makes sense to have a list which points out these benchmarks. You are right that there must be a certain amount of editorial discretion. You label this as original research, which is a legitimate concern. I would argue that it is original synthesis (there's an essay which needs to be written), based on a reasonable amount of research and accepted truths. Mak (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there are problems with the list, but solvable ones. We are getting there. The list isn't far off being very valuable. Best, Moreschi 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (quite apart from which, deletion after all the hard work would probably cause mass wikisuicide at the Opera Project.)[reply]

• Keep and relist later In a lot of ways this should be deleted because massive editing still hasn't solved fundamental WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems. The solution might be to decide on outside authorities (what are the five or six authorative opera guides?) and stipulate that any opera listed must have a non-trivial entry in all of them. Unlike most other articles that pop up on AfD I see a group of dedicated editors at work here, so I'm hoping the problems raised in this AfD will get a good hearing on the talk page. So I propose a Keep → Wait → Eventually Relist strategy. Yes, that amounts to putting the article on probation. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most sensible comment of them all. Marc Shepherd 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sort of. But what are these authoritative guides? First, there's Opera Grove, which has (I believe) articles on about 1800 operas. Then there are Kobbé and the Viking/Penguin guide (I own the penultimate edition of each). The former contains over 300 operas, the latter well over 1000, although music-theatre works are included as well as operas proper.

The list of important operas currently contains around 110 entries. I'm prepared to bet that very nearly all the works currently listed are in all those guides (and, quite likely, in the Rough Guide, too). This might satisfy trialsanderrors, but would it satisfy Mais oui! and wikipediatrix? Will we be compelled to add the other 200/900/1700 operas, too?

Oh, by the way, my vote is Keep. This is a useful list, aimed at the beginner, and is not dissimilar to the 500+ "List of notable xxxxx" articles. GuillaumeTell 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Mais oui! and wikipediatrix want are verifiable criteria. I think that's do-able, but it has not yet been done. Marc Shepherd 16:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that we usually leave the choice of sources to editorial discretion, as long as they fulfill that foggy "reliable" criterion. The talk page discussions looked fairly collegial to me, so I'm not too worried that picking the guides will turn into encyclopedic mud wrestling. The other difference is that you can actually make claims of the "considered X's masterpiece" variety if that's the opinion of one or more guides. As it reads now (and by looking at the selection process) it smacks too much of POV & OR. Also, if you find two guides with 300 operas each, but a number of more exhaustive ones, I'm fairly sure that the intersection of those sources isn't bigger than 150. ~ trialsanderrors 17:11, 29 August 2006 (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.