Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limuel B. Forgey III


 * 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   speedy deleted. By per WP:CSD G7 T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Limuel B. Forgey III

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Subject has not had a significant or notable career as a professional opera singer. All four roles to date have been with semi-professional community companies. Golden Gate Opera's production of Madame Butterfly was with piano accompaniment only and for "emerging artists". California Opera is a training program. The roles created were in two other operas composed by a local high-school teacher with an amateur cast. All coverage has been very local (Fresno and Visalia in California), with no articles specifically devoted to the subject. No professional recordings or evidence of having won or placed in a national or international singing competition. Note that I had brought the article up to the best state I could, but it has recently been edited by an anonymous IP which I suspect is affiliated to the subject, who suprisingly has removed one of the few independent references and (not surprisingly) has re-added promotional language. To get the best version of the article available, see this one. Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE Debate is now moot as the article has been deleted at the request of the author Voceditenore (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly not a notable singer.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possible self-promotion. Lack on notability. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more than "possible" self promotion—it's almost certain. The article was created by Limforgey and further edited by Lforgey. However, that in itself is not a reason to delete if the subject is notable. Unfortunately, this one is not. Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE While at first glance your assumption that subject does not have a significant career in opera seems to be somewhat valid, evidenced does exist to the contrary by supporting sites. Further, you suggest that subject has only worked in one area (Fresno), but Golden Gate Opera, according to their web site, is in fact in the North Bay area outside of San Francisco over 100 miles away, and not close to the other areas of work.  Further, both California Opera and Golden Gate opera have intermingling of professionals with young artist, and there is no suggestion on either site that the subject was a young artist, but rather a contracted artist (http://limuelforgey.homestead.com  "Booking and agent information") .  Golden Gate opera's production appears to be both an emerging artist program and first "Town Hall Opera" suggesting a combination of up-and-coming and professional personell in an intimate setting which is not uncommon in b houses, which are in fact professional.  In fact, there is clear indication that as the subject is a managed artist by California Opera, which, according to their site, deals with professionals, young artists and children all three. Finally, in regard to the quality of a work and the suggestion that it is not of "quality" because the  composer is had also worked as a school teacher would also say that some of the works by greatest composers  would be also inadequate.   Subject asserts notoriety and it is supported.--KPrummer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)  — Kprummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak delete, probably fails WP:GNG. Fresno Bee ref would have the strongest chance of contributing to notability, but it appears to be broken and not recoverable via archive.org, and provides no quote to help us understand what it once said.  Other refs, as professional listings, likely cannot be considered independent reliable sources. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment more support found at Marine scope news paper on performace and professional nature of subject  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't provide significant coverage of subject per WP:GNG; he gets a passing mention, if a positive one. That would be suitable for inclusion in a Reception section of the article, but doesn't contribute to notability. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree: this discussion is not about the professionalism or the professional qualities of the subject, it is about whether or not the subject has (had) a notable professional career as a singer. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Inclusion in a professional review does provide "notable" and professional evidence--from an outside news source with a large following in a major US city and satisfies WP:GNG ;  . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 November 2010
 * Comment: you should read WP:GNG more carefully, particularly the first paragraph on "significant coverage": sources (plural) addressing the subject directly in detail (as opposed to a passing mention). --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, so here is a second publication from a second critic with subject as focus [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, great. It's not the most in-depth coverage ever, but it's not a passing mention, and I would say it contributes to notability.  That leaves us still at one notability-establishing citation, but if you can come up with another item as good as or better than that one, I believe I would change my !vote to keep. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete His premiering roles are in works by a composer who isn't apparently notable enough for an article here, and one of them for an operatic company that seems to have no other ghit than this article. I would presume Paul Klemme is the one who is Music Director at St. Paul's Episcopal, Salem, Oregon. Possibly a good trainer of conductors, and definitely a conductor himself (including works by Bizet and Menotti), but not a name widely known - so far as I can see. Kaplan is wider known, and was hailed by Bernstein as having great talent. However, being a student of someone doesn't make one notable (unless one murders one's mentor quite spectacularly...). Ghits for Forgey include the usual social sites and I didn't see anything much more. I feel (quite possibly incorrectly) that a bit of self-promotion is going on here. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore's check into the edit history does seem to indicate that self-promotion is at issue, but I think we can still evaluate notability on its own merits. Promotional tone is a content issue and not one we need to address here. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have struck through multiple use of 'do not delete' above by the only supporter of the article. Please note that this is not a count the votes situation, but even so only one !vote is allowed per poster. Other remarks are 'comment' or similar. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Comment" Thanks Peridon, I see your point. I have changed lingo to "comment"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete: Falls within the scope of WP:GNG, comments on self promotion are not valid to this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpolarbear (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Cjpolarbear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment The preponderance of single-purpose accounts (all edits are to this discussion or the subject page) who fail to sign their posts and write "Do Not Delete" rather than "Keep" is getting a bit distressing in here. I'll just leave this here for the general edification: WP:SOCK &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of us actually are trying to learn the lingo, like myself. That dosen't mean that others should throw around accusations like sock puppets.  So that's what this forum is now, more than one person disagrees, and there is conspiracy? Sad.  Just sayin.--SIGNED KPRUMMER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2010


 * You sign posts by writing four tildes in a row, ~, as clearly explained by the message that SineBot left on your talk page, notification of which you will have received as a "You have new messages" box. I was attempting to gently and non-accusatorily point out that sock puppetry is unacceptable, since as you point out you're a newbie and we try not to WP:BITE those, even though attempting to manipulate consensus that way is something Wikipedia has very little tolerance for.  I have since been looking around to see if there's any recommended path for someone who has socked without fully understanding the consequences to extricate themselves from their predicament, but have not been able to find anything.  If you have, in fact, socked, the best thing I can think of for you to do is try to immediately WP:VANISH the sock accounts and henceforth post only from the single account of your choice; an apology would not be out of order.  I do not know whether this is enough to prevent a block, but it's worth a try. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment--There is no "socking"--Im just saying that I myeslf (I can only speak for me) am learning about signing posts. I have never fought for an article before.  I am a fan of this guy, and he is know and he is new, and I think he deserves an article, caue he seems to fit the critiria.  Thats all.  Thanks for trying to help me, and I just now understood how to read messages--I'm 60 years old and computers are not easy for me.  But really, this kid is good and deserves an article.  He fits the profile and is known in the opera world and getting more known.  Can't we help the article some how, instead of trying to get rid of it?KPrummer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 November 2010


 * Okay. Just, be advised, if you have been socking and you make us find out the hard way, any moral capital that might have been gained by voluntarily disclosing and giving it up is lost.  As far as improving the article goes, I hope you see from my previous participation that I'm all in favor.  There is only one kind of improvement that's of benefit to this discussion, though: the addition of independent, reliable, significant coverage.  You found one citation which I consider to qualify, which is awesome.  If you have the wherewithal to turn up another, then we'll really be in business. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK Chaos--I found a DVD on Amazon.com from one of his Opera premiers. Here is the link  bottom of the page you see "Lim Forgey" Does this work? --kprummer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Fraid not. That's what's called a "primary source", meaning it's a work he contributed to.  Those don't contribute to notability.  What we're looking for are independent, secondary sources, like the other citation you gave, of a critic discussing him.  Newspaper or magazine articles about him or including a decent amount of information about him, material from books, that sort of thing. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, with the four tildes thing, the tilde is a little squiggle, not a hyphen; on a typical US keyboard it's found to the left of the number 1, in the shift position above the backtick (`). When you sign your posts using four tildes, you don't have to write your username; it fills that in for you. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand that his DVD of an Opera on Amazon can't work (but it seems like it should-jeeze)--here is the last thing I have today...It is an article about an opera he was in and he getting a great review by a critic for a large news paper.  if this dosen't give us the two we need, along with the one we thought was week, along with the professional DVD or an opera he was in, and supporting web sites...I feel defeated!  Fingers crossed.Kprummer (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that is tough. That's not very much coverage, though still better than the clear passing mention in the first item you found.  Between your two new cites, though, and the California Opera Association and Golden Gate Opera refs, which maybe could be considered to contribute something toward notability, at least in the presence of other cites, I'm going to change my !vote to a weak keep.  That's just me, though; I don't know if other editors will be as forgiving of the limited degree of coverage in the new cites. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for keeping an open mind and encouring me to look deeper.  I think there is substance there and it was keen to keep looking myself into a subject that I really enjoy and an artist that I like a lot!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, hell. I just now noticed that the two articles are both from fresnobeehive.com, i.e. they're the same source (and they're even by the same writer, in case we were tempted to try to dodge that way).  So no good. :(  Sorry. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I've sought feedback on the California Opera Association and Golden Gate Opera citations' contribution toward notability at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The websites of both those companies are reliable sources for verifying that Forgey sang with them. They are not reliable sources for his biographical claims. These bios are provided by the singers themselves or their agents and are not independent of the subject. Nor do they count as "coverage" of the subject. As an analogy, go the website of a dental practice. You will probably find resumes of each of the dentists in the practice, e.g. . This doesn't attest to the notability of the dentist or significant coverage in published reliable sources which are independent of the subject, merely that they are employed by that practice. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I figured in my first comment on the topic. I was vaguely hoping I was being too pessimistic about it.  Doesn't sound like I was. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is especially for User:Kprummer but it applies generally to this discussion. The notability criteria at Wikipedia have nothing to do with how talented or accomplished the subject is, how well-liked they are in their community, or how well they do their job. Failure to meet those criteria does not imply that the person is untalented, has no accomplishments, is not well-liked in their community, or doesn't do their job well. Many new editors (especially emerging artists and their families and friends) make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to raise their profile in their chosen profession. In fact, the purpose of a Wikipedia biographical article is to document someone who has fully "emerged", who has made a significant impact, whose profile is already so high that they have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." (Criteria 1. for Notability of musicians and ensembles) The independent sources which have emerged so far are: #1 (review in a  community newspaper with a one sentence mention of the subject) #2 (a two sentence shout-out announcing Forgey's performance in #1 with ticket information in the Fresno Bee arts blog) #3 (a review of The Scarlet Letter in a local newspaper, Visalia Times Delta, which mentions Forgey. I had added this when I was referencing the article because it was a completely unreferenced biography of a living person. For some reason this was removed by a IP editor  yesterday) #4 (reprint of a review of The Scarlet Letter in the Fresno Bee which mentions Forgey in one three sentences, by the same reporter in #2) #5 (Note I was able to recover this Google cache of the article publicizing the California Opera performances of Madame Butterfly and La traviata. It includes a paragraph each on Forgey and one of the other singers) Opinions can vary as to whether this extremely local coverage (and in the case of #1, #2, and #4 also quite trivial) passes Criteria 1. for Notability of musicians and ensembles. I don't believe it does, which is why one then has to look at the other criteria to see if the subject would pass under one on those. I cannot see evidence of him passing any of them. The Scarlet Letter DVD is self-published by the composer, not released on a commercial label, and note the review of this performance in #4: "'The world-premiere opera, which played for four performances last weekend at the College of the Sequoias theater, had a polish—and a confidence—that you don't always associate with amateur productions.' (my bolding)" Note also the quote from #5 re California Opera Association which trains singers at various levels, but still is a training organization: "Edna Garabedian, the indefatigable artistic director of Cal Opera, has always positioned the company's annual summer festival and institute as a training ground for advanced young singers. Many of them already have extensive vocal educations, but Garabedian is trying to prepare them for the next phase of a career: how to prepare for auditions, what to wear, how to choose roles. Part of being a marketable singer is the ability to sing one leading role on one night—and turn around and sing another one just a couple of days later. That's why Garabedian has programmed two major works for the last weekend of the festival: 'La Traviata' tonight; and 'Madama Butterfly' on Sunday, both at the Mercedes Edwards Theatre in Clovis. Nearly all the institute's singers are in both fully staged productions. This is the first year the festival has two big titles performing in one weekend. Why wait till this year? Simple. Because she thinks her singers can, Garabedian says. 'I felt they were capable of doing this,' she says. 'If they're going to be successful professionals, it's going to be something they have to do. (my bolding)" Incidentally, Golden Gate Opera explicitly describes their Madame Butterly performance as "Golden Gate Opera's Emerging Artist Program" and uses virtually the same cast (and director) as the California Opera Association one. An "emerging" opera artist is not synonymous with "young" artist, "untrained" artist, or "amateur" artist. It means that the artist has not yet achieved a significant career at the highest professional level, singing many leading roles with fully professional companies which perform operas with a full orchestra and chorus and a completely professional cast. I know this response is very long, but I want the new editors participating here to understand a bit more about this process, what the criteria are, what a "delete" opinion means, and that it is not taken lightly. If it helps, here are some AfDs for opera singers which closed as "keep", , , and some which closed as "delete" , , . Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (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.