Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov

:{{la|Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Since when our encyclopaedia has been expanded to include drawn-out comparisons between works of art, peppered with tons of opinions expressed by other artists? The idea of Joyce and Proust or Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina or Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11 articles may be fun but it is inherently not encyclopaedic. It results in loosely constructed essay-like entries full of POV opinions and original research. I suggest merging the text back to Boris Godunov (opera). --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:Welll, the text has been returned to the main Boris article. This should basically end the argument on what should go where. May I please now blank out the article for speedy deletion or wait until we are done talking?

:BTW, while you're at it, maybe someone should look at the main Boris page and explain how that has escaped the censure this article has received. It is for the most part not documented and is actually poorly organized and written. I'd done some clean-up before splitting off Rimsky and Shostakovich, but it's still fairly shaky stuff. Jonyungk 06:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

::The second paragraph in the original article ("Dmitriy Shostakovich edited Boris Godunov in 1939–1940. He confined ... do more than simply accompany the singers.[1]") got lost in the merge. If a merge is the consensus outcome (which I'm not convinced of), that paragraph should be retained, probably at the beginning of the Shostakovich section of the Boris article. Michael Bednarek 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:::It's there now. The original place for that paragraph was where you are suggesting it should go. All I did in the merge is reverse the edits taking the material out of the the main Boris article. Jonyungk 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

::I don't see much wrong with the material whether in a separate article or not placed. It appears that one user User:Ivan Velikii sometimes working as an IP has been steadily working on the opera article for over a year. You joined in in the last month and contributed in the same style. I think the article could do with some inline referencing, particularly indicating where the commentators said things, and slight wikifying. (A quote at the top is not standard wiki practice.) But if that were done it would probably get through as a GA candidate reasonably easily. But such discussion probably should be in the main article talk page--Peter cohen 10:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree on the inline referencing and wikifying. I'd kept the roughly the same style as User:Ivan Velikii deliberately, mainly to avoid anything along the lines of "Hey, you ruined my article!" or anything like that. (Strange to say in line with the current discussion but that's my mind for you.) Doing just those things would go a fair ways toward streamlining and shortening the article, plus (at least for me) making it easier to read. Or maybe I should leave well enough alone and let Ivan do it? Jonyungk 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Boris Godunov (opera) per nom. -- Kleinzach 09:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to where it should be per Ghirla. Moreschi ^Talk 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Ghirlandajo, maybe userfy the original article Alex Bakharev 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Keep, perhaps rename as per Henry Flower below per nom. Now changed as the existing opera article is already very long (I don't say too long), & per some arguments below. Johnbod 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename 'Reorchestrations of Boris Godunov'. This is excellent content, impeccably cited, and in much greater depth than would be appropriate in the main Boris Godunov page. Spin-off pages are exactly what we do when we have a lot of content on on particular aspect of a topic: keep a short summary on the main page, and link to this one.

:The reason given for merging is completely flawed. This is not 'a comparison between works of art'; it's an in-depth exploration of one aspect of one work of art, as my suggested renaming would make clear. Henry^Flower 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:: "Impeccably cited"? The article opens with a pile of heavily biased opinions on the opera's perceived "technical shortcomings: weak or faulty harmony, counterpoint, part-writing, and orchestration". These are someone's personal opinions and, even if sourced, they will not become less judgmental on that account. The page reads like an essay, so :Template:Essay-entry is probably in order. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That's simply untrue. The intro says, "it has received an inordinate amount of criticism" on these points: that is a statement of fact, not of opinion. Henry^Flower 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article contains very useful material for students of the work. Merging it into Boris Godunov (opera) would make that article too long. Michael Bednarek 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

:*Coment The size of the article could be reduced by splitting off the discography (and perhaps other sections) into a separate page(s). -- Kleinzach 08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The other possible pairings given as analogies are much more distant, & the comparison does not take account of the special circumstances of this one. Rename per the specialists. DGG (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but provide more of a summary in Boris Godunov (opera) - The main article is too long to merge it directly into, but it ignores Shostakovich's version almost entirely, which is wrong. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I have problems with some of the arguments made on both sides. First, the multiple verions are regarded as mainstream options for performing the opera. Schoenberg's orchestrations of the Brahms Piano Quartets (surprised they don't have articles) are very much recreations intending to produce a very different sound world andthus different works which happen to have the same notes in the same order as the originals. The alternative performing versions of Boris are attemtps to "fix" what were seen to be technical mistakes by Mussorgsky. However, because of this, I think they should be covered in the main article. Ideally I would expect sound samples so that readers can hear how the coronation scene sounds in the different orchestrations and decide what version they might want to buy a recording of. As for size, the two articles combined don't come to much over 60K. This isn't huge, especially as the listy stuff, such as discography, roles and references don't count towards the recommendations on article size.--Peter cohen 13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Whatever we decide, there's information here worth keeping. Someone should also inform the creator about this AfD. --Folantin 08:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article can be cleaned up and made NPOV with relatively little trouble. All the material currently in it was taken from the main Boris article, which was not cited and, perhaps to my fault, not corrected sooner, as I was tied up incorporating peer review suggestions on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. The entire reason I spun off the current article is that (1) the main Boris article is much too long and (2) the opera's history at Rimsky's and Shotstakovich's hands does bear a special history in its own right. Jonyungk 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment No matter what eventually happpens to this article, the main Boris article as it currently stands is a total mess, organizationally speaking. It needs to be streamlined and perhsps shortened considerably. Jonyungk 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment I am also all for Henry^Flower's suggestion for renaming this article "Reorchestrations of Boris Godunov" provided it remains as a separate article. Jonyungk 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

::: Are there any other articles devoted to re-orchestrations? If we are going to treat the Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions as essentially distinct from the original then we should have two new articles, making three in all. -- Kleinzach 01:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per HenryFlower. -- Roleplayer 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

: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.