Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Avenue Opera Theatre

:{{la|Union Avenue Opera Theatre}} ([{{fullurl:Union Avenue Opera Theatre|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Avenue Opera Theatre}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines for wikipedia as an amateur opera company. It was started by and is still largely supported by a local church and the company does not belong to OPERA America (professional organization for opera companies in US). Nrswanson (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment. A difficult call. They perform in a church, not a theatre, and seem to employ a pick-up orchestra. It looks as if the chorus are amateur and the soloists are young singers who are looking for nominally 'professional' employment. Can anyone clarify the status of this company? --Kleinzach 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:Keep A company (UAOT) of 13 years' standing with 33 opera productions in their original language (which the Opera Theatre of Saint Louis (OTSL) doesn't do) seems notable enough to me. How is the claim of an amateur opera company supported? My reading of their website is that they use emerging artists, but professional none the less. They use volunteers for front-of-house duties, but they seem to have at least three paid artistic/administrative positions. In 2008, both the OTSL and the UAOT produced four operas. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment.Although UAOT may now do operas in other languages, their history does not indicate that this has been so for very long [http://www.kdhx.org/index.php?option=com_kdhxreview&task=details&id=474&Itemid=263 see here]. They seem to have adopted that policy only recently. Also, unlike OTSL which has been reviewed by Opera News and other international media, this company has not achieved any attention from media outside of Saint Lewis. Also OTSL has an internationally recognized young artist program with several well known singers having particapated in the program (such as Susan Graham). UAOT can not say the same. I think this is still a very young company that is only semi-professional. Since it hasn't achieved recognition by any national opera publications, does not have any recognized talents involved with the organization (including the directors), has not been covered by anything but local media, is a relatively new company, holds its performances in a church, is not a member of OPERA America, employs an amateur chorus and semi-professional orchestra, and employs unknown/unestablished singers I don't think this company is notable.Nrswanson (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Question Are there any regulations in the US to make sure that so-called 'professional singers' are actually paid? If not, the word 'professional' may not mean very much in connection with companies like UAO. --Kleinzach 11:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - notability is established with coverage in reliable sources and not on editor's opinions as to whether the work and history of the opera company is significant. The StL Post Dispatch has sustained coverage (reviews) of the company's work over many years indicating they are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment- Doesn't mean much. The STL Post reviews community theater as well and other local events. For a professional company to become notable they have to be recognized in media beyond local news (the emphasis being on independent third party sources). There are lots of opera magazines both on-line and off-line that cover regional opera around the US such as Opera News, and its a bit odd that the company has never been reviewed by one if it is notable. Nrswanson (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::*Comment - I tend towards WP:NOTPAPER, and consequently see the notability bar as being set rather low. If a major daily like the StL Post Dispatch is taking note of this group's work over a sustained period of time, then it's notable for me. Perhaps the intersection of WP:NOTE and WP:NOTPAPER might turn out different for another editor, but it lands on the side of keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Question Can you tell us why you regard the StL Post Dispatch as "a major daily"? Do you live in the area? My understanding up to now is that community-supporting local publication reviews don't qualify as media coverage. --Kleinzach 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Reply It is the daily newspaper for a major metorpolitan area including region surroundng St. Louis. -- Whpq (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::According to [http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2007_Top_100List.pdf this] the StL Post Dispatch ranks 26th in the USA. Isn't it a local newspaper - not one of national importance? --Kleinzach 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Reply - Why does the paper need to be of "national importance"? -- Whpq (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Reply- It doesn't have to be. However, media coverage that isn't local is a sure sign of notability whereas local media coverage isn't necessarily a sign of notability. As my summary below sums up, there are a variety of factors here to consider and not just one mark against notability necessarily meens the company is not notable. I write many articles on opera companies in the US and in general I can almost always find a source outside of local media with a few exceptions. In those instances where external media coverage is unavailable I look for a few other factors. 1. Are they a registered professional company with Opera America. If they are a member (professional member not affiliate member) than they are notable. 2. What kind of orchestra and chorus do they employ. Are they professional and are they paid. 3. What kind of singers work with the company. Are they professional and are they paid. (a fact not always apparent even with some so called professional companies in the US) 4. The history of the company and any influence that may have on notability. You have to look at all these factors as a whole. A case in point would be Light Opera Oklahoma which I couldn't find external media coverage for. However, they are a member of OPERA America, they have paid performers with the leads having impressive resumes, and the Tulsa Symphony Orchestra plays for their productions. All of those factors together made that company notable. In this case, I can't find anything to suggest that Union Avenue Opera meets any of the above criteria.Nrswanson (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Reply - Repeated coverage is a sign of notability. It doesn't matter if the subject were a hula troupe, so for me, there's no need to look into specific details of the attributes of opera companies to determine if this particular one is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::But - unless I'm missing something - there isn't repeated coverage, only one instance. If you have other references can you tell us about them? --Kleinzach 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::A [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Union+Avenue+Opera+Theatre%22&um=1&sa=N&start=0 Google News search] turns up a lot of results from the StL P-D with coverage from as early as [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB04FCCAF9E63B3&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM August 1996] to the present. That is 12 years of sustained coverage of the performances from this group. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Question: What exactly are the written rules for the notability of opera companies? Obviously, WP:NOTE is not much help. I can't see any relevance in WP:MUSIC either, especially after encountering this: the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. WP:ORG doesn't say anything specific on this kind of organisation, but it obviously allows for non-commercial groups. Note: these three documents are guidelines, not policies.

:As for media coverage required to be beyond local news: many opera companies don't get much media exposure on a national, much less on an international, level; e.g. coverage of Opera Australia's productions is mostly restricted to Sydney. I suspect this is true for all but a dozen or so of those appearing in :Category:Opera companies.

:In short: it seems to me there are no suitable policies/guidelines for the notability of opera companies. In the absence of those, nominating an article for deletion based on lacking notability seems unfounded. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment. Actually there are several publications that cover a wide array of opera companies. Using your example of Opera Australia, here are two recent reviews from Opera News (you will need to get a free log in first to view): [http://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/review/review.aspx?id=153&issueID=9] and [http://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/review/review.aspx?id=1928]. How about we go even more obscure with Berkshire Opera. Here is a review [http://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/review/review.aspx?id=970&issueID=53]. Or not too far from Saint Lewis with a Tulsa Opera reviewhttp://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/review/review.aspx?id=861&issueID=49. As you can see, just with this one magazine there is a wide array of coverage and this is not the only opera magazine and journal that has such wide coverage. I wouldn't necessarily use this as the only factor in determining notability but with several factors involved here: 1. no outside media coverage 2. amateur chorus (and orchestra?) 3. non-notable singers 4. performs in a church 5. started by a local church 6. Not a member of OPERA America All of them together add up to not notable in my opinion.Nrswanson (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete After sitting through this discussion and reading everything that has emerged about this company, I think it's clear now that they are non-notable. Much of Michael Bednarek's analysis above is correct, however his last point ("it seems to me there are no suitable policies/guidelines for the notability of opera companies. In the absence of those, nominating an article for deletion based on lacking notability seems unfounded.") draws the wrong conclusion. In the absence of precedents, it's our responsibility to make them. --Kleinzach 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera:

:Union Avenue Opera is a professional company and has been paying singers for over 10 years. While they are cosidered a "D" house in terms of budget and size, I can assure you that they are professional and their productions are generally quite good. The orchestra contains many people from the St. Louis Symphony. In recent years, they have been able to hire a few more notable singers, as their budget increases. The chorus is also paid....not the church choir, believe me! Singers are flown in and housed at donors homes- just like Opera Theatre of St. Louis. You could consider Union Avenue Opera to be the "New York City Opera" of St. Louis, with Opera Theatre of St. Louis being the "Met" of St. Louis. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.28 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::My comment to that is that it is not verifiably true and may be personal opinion and not fact.Nrswanson (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::WP:AGF Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::AGF indeed, but is it a good practice to copy comments made elsewhere to this page? I think this is a bad precedent. --Kleinzach 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::(Sigh; I really don't like meta² discussions; still:) To me, the contribution by 71.172.171.28 seemed relevant to this discussion here, and I assumed the anonymous editor might be unfamiliar with the intricate procedures of an AfD nomination and where to respond. I think collating all the relevant information is indeed good practice. What I consider bad practice is deleting parts of an AFD discussion; the strike-out feature is normally used to retract one's own statements, and contributions by others are allowed to stand (and fall) on their own merit, unless they are blatant vandalism.

::::Back to the merits of this AFD: the anonymous editor also provided a link to a 10 minute feature by KETC on this company, which I didn't paste here. I have now seen the video, and while the singing is not world-class, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a worthy organisation which adds to the culture of St. Louis in no small way. I have seen much more frugal productions than what was shown in the stage production excerpts in that video. I think we are needlessly setting the bar too high with this AFD — cui bono? As for dismissing items of only local significance or coverage: [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — J. Wales] (That editor's contributions include an {{Querylink|Mzoli's|qs=oldid=158511192|article}} on an obscure South African butchery and I think that better represents Wikipedia's attitude to items of local significance than this AFD.) Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::We need the facts - not a lot of vague circumstantial detail. State your case yourself. Please don't import material into this discussion to support your personal POV. If you approach the discussion in an intellectually honest, straightforward way, then other people will follow your example. --Kleinzach 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::It's quite common to add or refer to information in talk pages when discussing an AFD when the material is relevant to the discussion. I don't see how the addition of the material from a talk page that points towards a a broadcast segment featuring the subject under AFD is out of line. -- Whpq (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2008 (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.