Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Opera Company


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea Opera Company

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable company, possible CSD A7 candidate but I'm sending it here for community review. Article's only sources are from the entity itself. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the NYT article cited calls the company "small, fledgling". At the moment they look like many other small companies all over the country. Give them a few years and see how they develop. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it has received some media coverage, not necessarily as a traditional opera company, but for their work with youth and exposure to opera. - initial problems with the initial Afd & citations appear to have been fixed.  SkierRMH 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very small fish in a very big pond. The NYT article cited is only a passing mention, to boot. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong KeepThis is a great sample of the best that "small" can be. The outreach programs and assitance to young artsts is an example that should be noted and kept on this site. added note. I'm fairly new here but see that this site has multiple pages for roads, road 400.  .  Isn't having an article about "people" just as important?  Let's not look at numbers, just for once, but what is at the heart of a project in determining it's value. Greekvoice 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Very strong Keep Ditto to the above!!! Much more worthy than many of the single musician stubs that are on this site. This is just a stub, give it a chance. I've been in the audience and seen first hand what they do and they have great community support and will bring many people to this site. A very positive addition.Operadog 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Very strong KeepKeep this page as a stub, at least. Much more deserving of space on this site then many who are given that distinction, absolutely. A growing and thriving company, also has a California affiliated group who are helping expand their reach. A shame if you drop this deserving company.Leah01 15:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I must add to previous coments and ask why Lancaster Opera Company is allowed on this site with no problems from editors, and they have no offical website and not one reference listed. Give this company a break and stop threateniing to remove it. You have allowed other small companies, much less notable. Fair treatment please. Leah01 16:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Operadog, Leah01, and Greekvoice all have very few edits outside of this article and the related Daniel Rodriguez (which is not up for deletion), and appear to be working in concert (no pun intended): see, referring to "I and our team." | Mr. Darcy talk 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * don't see the concern as the issue is that this deserving company has as much right be in this encylopedia as any, and more than some. Lets concentrate on the situation of relevancy and important, and not who is stepping up to give their educated opinions. It would seem that the purpose of Wikipedia is to encourage MORE people of good intentions to join in, and open up sites like this, instead of blocking their atttempts to do something positive. Makes absolutely no sense at all, and eventually you will simply be the losers, as you will chase away new customers.  It may already be working to do exactly that. Is that really what you wish for Wikipedia, check out the Kansas City star today.. an interesting editorial, comments on giving more deference to less important and far less worthy, than those who should be encourged to come here.Operadog 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ps. from my limited experience here, I've seen already far too many examples of bullying or trying to belittle the attempts to do something good. The climate precisely seems to discourage what the Goals of this site imply. Operadog 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here tis
 * http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16353073.htm
 * Titled: Wikipedia is hardly authoritative on any subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operadog (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not addding my name. But I also wanted to ask Mr. Darcy if he would rather we come to this site with limited knowledge of what we are opening a page for, or go to our resources and ask for help, as I have done, in assembling the information that has been placed on the several sites, I have been a part of in developing. What is it yu have against people of good intentions working together for a good cause. It's called "Team work". Not some kind of conspiracy, as I've been made to feel, I am imposing on others. I applaude all who consider this to a good thing, and question the motives of those who are so against it. 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Sorry again for forgetting to sign nameOperadog 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's fix it and be fair. I don't see why a reputable Opera company's article could be 'deleted' without any additional support. This can't be happening.  Please let's not delete the article.  Let's work on it so that it meets the Wikipedia guidelines.  Come on, give the article a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaeNamorada (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2007  — LaeNamorada (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Very strong Keep I've just added information and links or references, and also asked for help in mediating this situation. This strong and young public minded Opera Company would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. They would be enhanced to have such fine organizations as this, as part of this site.  No reason whatso ever for deleting this group. They are fimly and professionally a thriving part of the Manhattan artistic community and do a lot of good work with young artists, even the recent USO fundraiser.  An example of the best of any in their size and scope,  that I've seen, in giving back to their community.  Why in the world would anyone even consider removing this group. Don't allow this to happen!! Broadwaydad 07:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC) — BroadwayDad (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Very strong Keep Attended several events there, definatly will see more of this exceptional group of artists. Absolutely outragous to even suggest deletion. An outstanding group of professionals working hard to do something special for their art and advance the careers of young performers. (and they are) Yes, a sterlinlg example of the best that small can be.  Size is not always an indicator of excellence. Leah01 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: User's second !vote. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per NYT review and notable singers appearing. Strong warning to the related entities over here: AfD is not a vote and meatpuppeting is very poorly regarded on Wikipedia. - crz crztalk 12:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral The article should be seriously cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards, or else it will have to be deleted due to Wikipedian guidelines. I also suggest finding out more about the company. Acalamari 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit and will return, and see if I can figure out exactly what should be removed or added. Any help is always appreciated. Not sure if we need more specifics about past performances or that kind of detail. Not sure if being "stub" can allow it to be very short and skip those details or not? Broadwaydad 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per SkierRMH but there is still cleanup needed. JamesMLane t c 10:53, 3 January 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.