Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altino


 * 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. This discussion requires the attention of an expert in the subject; as most of the opinions here came with a built-in disclaimer. If somebody can locate an authoritative reference on this subject or an expert who can shed some light on the matter, then it would be wise to relist this at that time. As it was, however, there was no consensus for deletion, and the deletion policy advises we lean toward keep in such situations.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Altino

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I suspect this article may either be a hoax or a product of original research. I am fairly knowledgeable in this field of study and I have never heard of the term altino before. Likewise, I have searched several vocal pedagogy texts and books on countertenors and have found no reference to the term. Nrswanson (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a term for countertenor used in Italy called a tenor altino (but never just altino) but the usage and definition are not synonymous with the description in this article. Otherwise I would suggest a merge. As it is deletion is best.Nrswanson (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Needs investigation The article is 3 years old, started by an editor with history of productive edits. Annette46 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Be that as it may, the article has no sources. No responses have been made to tags or to questions about authenticity on the article's talk page. The article edit history is also incredibly short and the article is virtually uncategorized even if it is three years old.Nrswanson (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with countertenors, that should get a wider knowledgeable audience Annette46 (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If the information was referenced I could see doing that but I think it is ill advised to merge possibly false information.Nrswanson (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There appears to be controversy on the countertenors article over tenor altinos vis=a=vis hautecontres. This URL supports that altino is one of the 5 main classes of counter tenor.Annette46 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that's a copy paste from an old version of the wikipedia countertenor article. lol Not exactly a reliable source. Better editors with actual references have worked long and hard on the article sense. Nrswanson (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an opera expert, but after reviewing your considerable edit history of single purpose edits on the subject of opera /music, its better we involve the larger community on this to guard against possible POV pushing. Annette46 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection. I think we all know what a WP:SPA is. It's not used for a specialist editor like Nrswanson who has edited and written many different articles relating to voice, opera and music. This particular article is a technical one - hence we need to involve editors with appropriate knowledge (and access to reference books). Technical knowledge has nothing to do with (quote) "possible POV pushing" (unquote).    -- Klein  zach  09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is rather an unfair comment. Rather than distract the conversation here I will respond on your talk page.Nrswanson (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was not personal. By googling I find quite a few references to tenor altino such as Google Book:The Wordsworth Book of Opera,1995. Why not move the article to tenor altino with a link to/from counter tenor ? Annette46 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, not really a good idea. Peter Giles in his book The Countertenor, says that the term tenor altino is the italian word for countertenor. It's not really a subtype of countertenor but just the italian word for countertenor. That's why this article is a little odd because it's trying the turn tenor altino into a sub voice type of countertenor (which is not an italian word or term by the way). If references can be found to show that the term tenor altino is different than countertenor than I would support creating a new article. A lot of the difficulty with voice type pages is that there are several different terms in different languages used. Sometimes the terms are directly synonymous and sometimes they are not. It can get complicated. I think the best thing to do is find an editor with good sources. I posted a note at the opera project and hopefully some more knowledgable people will come and join the conversation and/or add references.Nrswanson (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nrswanson. I've had a look in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera and can't find this term. If Annette46 can find a solid reference I'd be happy to reconsider but the mixture of unbacked information about singing, speaking and low testosterone levels hardly inspires any confidence in this information. -- Klein zach  09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no interest either way, except to see that possibly true but controversial material is not deleted. I quite understand User:Nrswanson]'s point. But, I also see that the article [[Altino is trying to convey that altino is the 'true' countertenor, which is also a controversy on countertenors. Personally I am at this time inclined to believe that altino => tenor altino => counter tenor, and there are no other forms of countertenor (like hautecontres). I am surprised though that Ralph Appelman's Vocal Pedagogy has nothing (google books searchable) on either countertenors or altinos. Annette46 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is surprising. I pulled up my copy in my personal library. He doesn't spend much time on the subject. Some notable tid bits here and there but there isn't a whole chapter dedicated to the subject and not a mention of altino that I can find.Nrswanson (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a passage from the 'Tenor' article in Grove by Jander, Steane and Forbes:  "A highly specialized type of tenor is the tenor altino (or contraltino) which extends into the treble region without breaking into falsetto." -- Klein zach  10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that complicates things because now we have it defined as a sub-type of tenor (much like the French haute-contre and Italian tenore di grazia) but with wording that could easily equate it with some definitions of countertenors by other authors. Regardless, this is still "tenor altino" and not just "altino".Nrswanson (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Term is not known in reference works. As it stands, without any reliable sources or references, the article look more like 'original research' and thus falls by WP:OR. (In addition, the reference to Klinefelter's syndrome, of which the WP article tells us only 10 cases have ever been recorded, and which is in no way substantiated, gives me that hoaxy feeling). As to merging - what genuine info does the article have to merge?Smerus (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment What about the third meaning given in it:Altino which has been there since December 2006; that definition seems to support this article. Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that as well, but it's only a red link so it hardly amounts to anything. -- Klein zach  13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate Having read this 1998 web article on Countertenors I am not convinced that the term altino can be dismissed as unnotable. And the term has an identity / usage separate and distinct from countertenor. The case of Russel Oberlin as an altino is controversial on many websites and specialist groups. But I am not an expert. Annette46 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The website you refer to says Oberlin is a tenor altino. We've acknowledged that this is an authentic term, see my quote from Grove above. You might argue that 'altino' is an abbreviation of 'tenor altino' that wouldn't justify a separate article, only a redirect at best. -- Klein  zach  13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, but the website does define "tenor / altino" and freely uses these terms interchangeably - separately or in conjunction. Is it possible that the Peter Giles book(s) is responsible for altering the pedagogy of these various terms / voices for countertenor, and seeing Giles to be the main ref for countertenor? Based on this website, the article is not ruled out as a hoax or original research, but the contents of the article certainly need rigorous scrutiny for reliable sources. "tenor altino" being an authentic term, this article can be redirected to "tenor altino" which is now increasingly looking as being nuanced differently from "countertenor". Annette46 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I found some more on the tenor altino in the Giles book, it basically supports what's in Grove and expands it a bit. I think the point he was trying to make by saying the term is basically the term for countertenor is because the term "tenor altino" is often placed as a sub-division of tenor within the Italian vocal classification, a practice not done in other classification systems. I don't think there was any attmept by Giles to redefine the term. His work is considered one of the best studies done on the subject of the countertenor by those in the music history field. Again, trying to equate terms across different cattegoral systems in different countries is not always easy. That aside, the information in this article, however, is definitey not accurate and seems to be a POV push by the original author to give the term tenor altino more weight over other terms that developed outside of Italy. There is also a lot of dubious scientific explanations in this article. I think we can and should discuss the term more thoroughly at the countertenor and/or tenor articles but a merger here is not warranted sense this article has multiple factual errors, is a POV push, and is poorly written. I would not even suggest a redirect at this point sense a consensus among editors at the countertenor and tenor articles will have to make a decision as to which page the article should redirect to. On the outside chance that the page is kept, the title should be changed to its proprer name, "tenor altino".Nrswanson (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nrswanson. That's a good summary. This is art not science. There will be differences in interpretation. The problem here is not to define tenor altino (Italian) in terms of countertenor (English), but to decide if this 'Altino' article has reliable information that should be in the encyclopedia. -- Klein zach  00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree Somewhat I agree with Nrswanson that the article be renamed as tenor altino and all unreliable contents be expunged. I disagree with Kleinzach that "this is art not science"; the standard reference book on Science of Vocal Pedagogy by D Ralph Appelman (avail. google books) while exploring subdivisions such as "alto tenors", "mezzo sopranos" etc has nothing on "countertenors" reinforcing my suspicion that perhaps "countertenor" itself is a hoax /OR - being a recent genteelism for variants of "falsettist" or neo-"castriati" Annette46 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Annette46 forgive me but that last comment made me laugh out loud. Particularly sense the word countertenor is actually hundreds of years older than the word falsettist which is a term than came in vogue during the 20th century. The term countertenor was derived from the 15th century term contratenor which was one of the part names in four part polyphonic writing. It is an English term and the earliest examples of usage in writing date back to the mid 17th Century. By the time of Henry Purcell (who frequently used the term countertenor on his manuscripts/scores which still exist) the word was in wide use within England. Also. the reason why Appelman uses the term "science" is because he was one of the earliest vocal pedagogists to apply modern scientific knowledge and research regarding human anatomy to the study of singing by using laryngealscope technology and other modern advances that help us better understand the physiological process behind singing. Vocal classification systems pre-date that science and Appelman himself points out that there is an art to singing that goes beyond the science. Also, here is a link to an amazon music search for countertenor for further verifiability. Nrswanson (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last comment is what an average reader would glean from countertenor on the lines of "a countertenor is the male equivalent of a mezzo soprano, singing parts previously written for falsettists and castriati. The term enjoying a modern revival after being popularised by Peter Giles' book - Giles being a "countertenor" himself and thereby not sufficiently RS to the extent that without Giles as a prop/source the countertenor article collapses under the weight of its own contradictions". However, all this has nothing to do with altino Annette46 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see where you got confused. And I have a problem with the assertion of that statement in the article since falsettist is a 20th century term. Looks like some re-writing needs to be done. It is true, however, that the countertenor had a resurgence in popularity in castrati roles. I have only contributed nominally to the countertenor article, so most of that page is the work of other editors. If you read the first section of the article the "countertenor in history" it does explain when the term came into usage, although it could be made more plain and expanded. The lead should really be re-written as well to be more clear on that fact. But again we are off topic.Nrswanson (talk) 05:56, 16 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.