Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Repertory Opera


 * 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 userfy. This is a borderline case. WP:NMG, criterion #1 says: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." There seems to be one independent non-trivial mention: the Epoch Times article. WP:N is less specific about the number, saying only "Multiple sources are generally preferred."

COI has been an oft repeated argument on the deletion side, and the diffs cited about one of the authors' self-promotion do not inspire confidence. However, these lie over a year back, and the editor has done least 1000 edits since, so we can allow that to come under the statute of limitations. More pertinent is that the article itself contains peacock language, such as "made history", "skilled cartoonist" and "award-winning" (which has rightly been tagged as needing a reference), and lists unencyclopedic information, such as comprimario singers.

I therefore think the most appropriate resolution is to userfy. That will give the authors time to bring the article to encyclopedic standard, and allows for some time until there is more independent coverage. I applaud Brett Wynkoop for logging in under his real name, and for being very reasonable and honest in the discussion here, and I would like to keep him as an editor beyond this one article. To symbolically acknowledge this, I will move the article to user:Wynkoop/Brooklyn Repertory Opera. &mdash; Sebastian 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyn Repertory Opera

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very minor company, page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the "Singers who...." section SingingZombie (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for nom. Can you explain why this should be deleted? Is it 'non-notability' or something else? -- Klein zach  09:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is clearly conflict of interest in both the creation and editing of this article, but neither that nor the addition of "bogus entries" per se are valid reasons for deletion. However, my impression is that the subject does not pass the notability criteria either generally (WP:NOTE) or for organizations (WP:ORG) or music ensembles (WP:BAND). This is a semi-professional opera company that's been performing for only two years, with zero mainstream press coverage and none in the specialised media apart from a review in the self-published Opera Today (written by a friend of one of the singers). The personnel are not notable either (or at least not at this stage in their careers). I'm waiting to hear some other views and/or someone finding more references, but at the moment I'd be inclined to delete on grounds of non-notability. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Quoth the nominator: "[…] page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the 'Singers who....' section" – those are not reasons for deleting an article which has stood since August 2008. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This opera company has three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons, and only two of them are by Susan Stoderl. Who are the "bogus entries" in the "singers who" section?  My name was deleted from the article recently (I put it back), but my name is found on the BRO website for every production except A.F.R.A.I.D., Cosi, and Hansel and Gretel. The Epoch Times isn't notable media coverage? The nominator, SingingZombie, has a personal vendetta gainst the company because they have barred him from ever again participating with the company because his behavior was so offensive, particularly to the women of the company.  He tried to add himself to the singers list, but he has never had a principal or comprimario role with the company, only a chorus role.   He was in the chorus only twice, and the second time, he showed up at the performances without his part learned (usually either not singing or singing the melody) and his shirt reeking of vinegar.  --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Very honored that Mr. Scottandrewshutchins has determined that EPOCH TIMES is notable media coverage. We feel vindicated, considering the slanderous wikipedia entry about our LEGITIMATE news organization.  Likewise, BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable. THANK YOU MR. Scottandrewshutchins!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falunopera (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Scottandrewhutchins and Falunopera both seem to have a conflict of interest here. We also need to remember Wikipedia's policies against 'outing' contributors. Frankly the more I read about this, the less I think this article belongs on WP. -- Klein zach  13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the Opera Today reference in the article plus other press coverage that can be located: . COI is not a reason to delete an article. Warrah (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the one who added the notability tag over a year ago as well as primarysources, both of which were removed two days later by yet another COI editor with the edit summary "edit for accuracy". I really feel this fails the notability criteria generally and for organizations and music ensembles. The press coverage cited by Warrah is trivial - simple one-line announcements in the "What's on" sections. The remaining two pieces are as I said, a review by a friend of one of the performers in Opera Today, which is a self-published website + a puff-piece in Epoch Times. And that's it. I have subscriptions to the Highbeam Research Archives and Opera News, and searched both. This could have been off-set possibly by significant productions, i.e. world premieres or even New York City premieres. But this hasn't happened. They're a semiprofessional troupe of (as yet) non-notable singers performing shoe-string productions of public domain operas. Scottandrewhutchins has asserted that there are "three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons". That may or may not happen. There are certainly no reliable sources to substantiate this. But in any case, notability is not prospective. I have argued in the past to keep articles about ensembles that were brought to AfD. A look at Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative shows the difference between a small, but sufficiently notable company and the one under discussion here. Incidentally, Family Opera Initiative was also a COI article complete with attempts at vote-stacking in the AfD. None of that makes any difference. But a lack of notability does. Voceditenore (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP Yes, I am involved with the company. The company is at least as important in the New York Opera scene as Opera Company of Brooklyn which performs in peoples homes with piano and only semi-staged.  Yes, they have been around since 2000 as opposed to our founding in 2006.  I have never paid much attention to this entry other than to check it for accuracy from time to time.  I was the one that removed the tag that Voceditenore mentioned.  That was my first time ever editing a Wikipedia page and the removal of that tag was in my mind an afterthought.  As I recall I fixed some dates and names.  Since I did not understand how Wikipedia worked, I did not know the importance of the tag Voceditenore had placed on the article.  BTW 2006-2009 is 4, not 2 years, and in this economy keeping a small company running at all is notable, but I know that is not what Voceditenore is speaking of.  There are 93,400 references to "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" on the web according to Google.  In searching for references to the company I discovered mentions that I did not even know existed.  Are they things that should be included on the page?  I am not an expert on Wikipedia, but the reasonable person would think that there must be something of substance about the company in 93,400 references.  Of extreme note is the history making use of countertenor in the role of Ulrica in Un Ballo.  While that was not picked up by the CBS evening news it was picked up by The Brooklyn Paper a weekly that has about the same circulation as my hometown newspaper in   middle America.  So, the company is making significant contributions to the art form in the form of world premiers; one in 2006, one currently in rehearsals to be performed in 2/2010, one in the future which is in rewrites by the composer, and a new one just submitted for consideration.  Also, considering BRO's thinking outside the box on casting where it works (countertenor as Ulrica) I have to say it seems that the company is noteworthy.  It is also of interest that the NOMINATOR for deletion of this article was the very person who added the "bogus entries", which were of himself! This necessitated a correction by a member of the company. The NOMINATOR has also been chastised for improper actions on other Wikipedia pages.  This may be a pattern. Looks like a witch hunt to me.  If the page is deleted it will have little to no effect on the company, but it will mean that a good resource of documentation of the history that the company has made, and is in the process of making will be lost forever. Wynkoop (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 93,000 hits on Google does not mean 93,000 references. That just means that Google found 93,000 pages that include the words "Brooklyn," "Repertory," and "Opera" on the same page, in any order, and with any amount of words between them.  Google hits do not establish notability.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 09:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SquidSK's claim is patently wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is wrong. The exact phrase "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" has 89,000 hits. But the principle is correct. These are not "references", and Google hits do not establish notability.Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment in reply to Wynkoop
 * Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not about the worthiness or otherwise of the subject. Nor is it about the number of google hits.
 * Opera Company of Brooklyn (another COI article, that could use some pruning to remove the PR hype) has significantly more coverage than Brooklyn Repertory Opera
 * The "bogus entry" the nominator was originally referring to was the article's creator (Scottandrewhutchins) adding his own name to the article.. However, the motivation of the nominator is immaterial to this discussion as is the conflict of interest of the creator and other members of the company who have extensively edited the article. The repeated focus on a private dispute, personal attacks and attempts to reveal the real-life identity of an editor are not helpful. There are several editors participating in this discussion with long experience of editing opera-related articles on Wikipedia and participating in deletion discussions. Characterizing this as participating in a "witch hunt" is neither helpful nor accurate.
 * The documentation of the company's history will not be "lost forever" if this article is deleted. For one thing, it can be moved to a user page of one of the editors until sufficient reliable sources are found to establish notability, i.e. when the world premieres take place. If they are significant works by significant composers, there will be coverage in independent sources.
 * Having said all that, the recently added article in The Brooklyn Paper "Unemployed? Have we got an opera for you!" might conceivably tip the balance to "keep" for some discussants.
 * – Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's becoming increasingly clear that this is a vanity article by a minor, largely amateur, company. Would anyone be trying to push this page on Wikipedia, if the company was anywhere other than New York? I wonder. -- Klein  zach  13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment One world premier has happened. I have been searching for a source besides our own web site for that, but it seems that the article about it which  was published in a local paper is no longer on line.  I may have a hardcopy of the paper somewhere, but I am not sure how that plays into things if I locate it. I do not know if either Kleinzach or Voceditenore know the scene in NYC, but getting any mention in NYC publications, let alone getting a review in a major publication is almost impossible.  It is not like NY is a slow news place as some smaller markets are.  There was an article written in The Brooklyn Paper when Cosi was produced that no longer seems to be on their site. Thanks for pointing out that it can become a user page until "the powers that be"  who ever they are think there are enough references in the world to our existing and being real.  I did not know that option existed.  No clue how to do it, but that is another story. The 93,400 hits were on "brooklyn Repertory Opera" please note the quote marks.  That means that those words in that exact order with nothing else between them will show up.  Many of those hits seem to be other companies web sites as we appear in the bios of people who have sung with us and have taken gigs other places.  You will note that there is a link to the  Brooklyn Borough Presidents Fall 2008 report to residents.  This is a PDF of a newspaper that was mailed to every person in Brooklyn.  Should it be listed differently than in the external links section? According to Wikipedia that was 2.5 million that got the paper and saw the short piece on the company.  I have recently added some mentions of BRO on other web sites in the External Links section.  I am not sure if that is the correct place for those to be or if something else should be done with them.  Maybe one you long in the tooth Wikipedia folks can advise and or make the proper adjustments. Wynkoop (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for Voceditenore Why do you not consider a world premier of an opera about the most famous and highest paid American newspaperwoman of the 19th centuary to be notable? Wynkoop (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of the opera was a notable person. That doesn't automatically make the opera (or any other work) about her notable. You need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as well as the notability links in my initial comment above. What makes an opera notable, is the notability of its composer and/or the amount of impact/recognition it has received.Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Voceditenore I just checked out Opera Today and the site is not run by the author of the review listed. The site in fact has many writers it apears.  I would have to say the publication is legit and not to be dismissed as it seems you are of the opinion to do.  Yes the reviewer has known a member of the company for several years, but he was not asked to do the review and the member of the company he knew did not get a good mention from him.  From this we can infer that either he is biased against that person, or if he was accurate and I think he was, as the lady sung the performance with a nasty upper respertory infection, and was not at her best, he was an impartial member of the media that happened to attend.  I am sure if asked he will shed light on the matter. Wynkoop (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it isn't "legit", but you need to read Reliable sources, especially with respect to establishing notability. Opera Today is a self-published website that accepts submitted reviews. A review of performance there doesn't necessarily make a person or organization notable. Also the reviewer did not "happen to attend". He wrote that he attended because he was a friend of the lead singer (and founder of Brooklyn Repertory Opera) and "she assured me the rest of the cast was good." The review may have been impartial, but we're talking about notability here. There needs to be more than this review.Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wynkoop is a new single purpose account created on 21 December. See MEAT, "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy." -- Klein zach  01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The named account is new (presumably for the purposes of participating in this AfD), but this supported by Wyncoop's own admission above, indicates that he (and other members of the company) have been editing the article from the same IP for over a year. The conflict of interest is clear. I should also point out that I have removed two links recently added to the article by this user:
 * "BRO is cited as a source on answers.com"
 * "WapMedia,WapMedia mentions A.F.R.A.I.D,WapMedia"
 * Both "mentions/citations" come from mirrors of Wikipedia articles. In both cases they were added to to those articles by editors associated with the company, . Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While it is apparently true that Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop has created a meatpuppet account in order to spend a lot of time and energy concocting a faux notability for this entry, you will notice in its history page that he has made a number of earlier contributions, deletions and corrections while not signed in as a user. Nevertheless, I am starting to better understand Wikipedia's standards for article notability, and this one clearly does not make the grade, despite Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's valiant efforts.  Indeed, this article reeks of narcissism and self-promotion, and I find Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's protestations of Wikipedia innocence quite disingenious, considering the fact that a quick google search shows that he is a self described webmaster, computer and IT consultant, as well as a member of a Gnubie circle, not to mention a fair use zealot.  This article is being beaten well past its death, and should be deleted before anymore harm is done to Wikipedia's excellent model and reputation. I agree that this article could better be hosted on one of Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's simple websites and still receive the google hits he and his cast are looking for. --Falunopera (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the same user Falunopera who wrote earlier: "BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Voceditenore Thanks for your well thought out responses to my postings. You seem to be an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense in the wikipedia world.  Your responses are helpful.  Many of the other postings in this talk make it clear to me why I generally avoid this type of thing. Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkoop (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Falunopera it amazes me that you know things about me that even I do not know. Instead of tossing about nonsense it would be more useful to stay on topic. If I were really trying to be disingenuous would I be posting under my real name? I think not,  I would have made up a name along the lines of Falunopera. Delete or Keep it really has no effect on either me or BRO, and some of the discussion here shows that some people are more interested in shaking things up for the sole purpose of feeling important.  Since the page is a fairly good brief history of the company I have archived it and you folks can do what you want and I wish you all fun and happiness in your games.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkoop (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm still not sure why companies that perform semi-staged productions with a piano in people's homes are more notable than a company that uses an orchestra, an established theatre venue, and performs fully-staged operas with orchestra and chorus. Wynkoop, could you link that radio interview as a citation of the upcoming world premieres?  I don't know if it counts as reliable, but it would be media coverage. I also don't understand how being a Wikipedia editor disqualifies me form being mentioned on a page.  There are at least three pages where reference to my name is relevant--this one, The Last Egyptian, and Uzo. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you are not sure why, then you need to read Notability. However, you have been editing for three years on Wikipedia, and ought to be familiar with these guidelines by now. Once again, how a company performs is immaterial. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not about achievement or "worthiness". I assume you are talking about Opera Company of Brooklyn, observe the press coverage . As for referencing your name, your creation of this article and your addition of your name as one of the performers is a clear conflict of interest and taken in conjunction with your edits to several other articles, is also spam. e.g. Uzo, Michael Nyman, Hutchins, The Last Egyptian, Christopher Slaughterford The Magic Cloak of Oz, Princess Ozma, Elbow witch. In all these articles, you added your name, and in many cases attempted to link it back to  your user page where you publish your cv. In several cases you also linked to your website. You need to read Conflict of interest and Spam if you don't understand why this is inappropriate. Your past record of attempting to insert your name in a variety of Wikipedia articles, most of which you created, makes your argument to "keep" in this discussion rather dubious. Voceditenore (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! A whopping 127 Google hits!  I'm not sure how this is more lgeitimate than Wynkoop's citing.  I'm sure this isn't considered legitimate journalism, either:  http://www.nytheatrecast.com/episode.php?t=303  --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That link was to Google News only, not the web in general, which you must have been aware of but chose to ignore. As can be seen from the Google news link alone, Opera Company of Brooklyn (unlike Brooklyn Repertory Opera) had multiple coverage in the New York Times plus Opera News, BBC News, Associated Press, etc. The link to the podcast you've mentioned is already in the article. It is up to the other discussants here to decide if it (and the other sources in the article) are enough to establish notability. In my view, they don't. Voceditenore (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * reply to Voceditenore  Thanks for pointing me to this: Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast over radio, television, Web stream, or a similar medium. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensemblesWikipedia:band since this is about Wikipedia rules the only thing left to say is QED.
 * It's debatable but not QED. First of all, that wording is from the "nutshell box" at the top of the page and was changed by an editor three days ago without discussion.. (The original wording was "Notability is met if if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network".) In my view, neither of the versions is an accurate summary of the specific criteria under WP:BAND e.g. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If the above were an accurate summary and taken literally, then any band which gets themselves a podcast on any web site would automatically pass, and clearly they don't. In my view this refers (if anything) to a web stream with a notable media company. It is debatable whether this 23 minute podcast of 3 heads of small NY opera companies getting 8 minutes each to talk about their organizations for www.nytheatre.com qualifies as such. But that's just one view in this discussion, and others may well differ. As it is, (even disregarding the "keep" opinions from the two editors with a clear conflict of interest) this discussion may well be closed as "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". - Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2009 (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.