Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major opera composers


 * 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 Retracting nomination. AfD closing by non-admin. No delete votes, and I am the nominator. After thinking about this for a while, even if what I'm saying is true, there's about a snowball's chance in hell of this list getting deleted. But the real reason I am retracting this nomination is that I'm violating WP:POINT. I was pointed to this article while in dispute about a similar article. The criteria of this article doesn't sit well for me, but clearly an AFD is not the appropriate way to go about this. I apologies to all involved. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers


Let me start out by saying that this is a great article. It's well written, it provides sources, it's interesting, and has a well explained criteria for inclusion. Except that's where the problem is, the criteria for inclusion, is a violation of No original research plain and simple. This will be a hard AfD, because I'm sure people will be voting keep left and right, but I should not have to remind everyone that WP:NOR is policy and cannot be over-ridden by votes. If we can't address this issue then we can't have this article. I attempted to tag the article with OR, but it was promptly removed. I added it back and it was removed again.

List of major opera composers even explains how people are added to the list. Ten lists are used, then people who appear on at least six of those lists are included.

WP:NOR addresses this kind of issue: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Unless it can be cited that someone else has noted these people by the same criteria using these ten lists, then it's been defined as original research. It's that simple. No matter how good of an article it is, we can't use it if it violates the no original research policy. Ned Scott 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep All right, I'll take the bait and fire the first shot. According to the rationale you just proposed, any article asserting notability is meat for deletion under WP:NOR, because they are using multiple reputable sources to advance a position (that the item in question is notable). It seems to me that this article has made assertions of notability for each individual composer, using multiple reputable sources, and so simply fills a basic requirement for existence. Furthermore, the assertion of "major" for every single one of these composers, except perhaps Pepsuch, Auber, Thomas, Schreker, Smyth, and Weir, will be affirmed by any single dictionary of opera, history of opera, or detailed general history of Western art music. Perhaps the criteria for inclusion should be changed, but this (ridiculously useful) list be kept. Chubbles1212 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a complete mis-understanding of synthesis, seemingly. The list is not saying that source A says Foo and source B says Bar, meaning that FooBar, which could be disallowed original synthesis, depending on the circumstances, the list represents, basically, very notable, reputable, and trustworthy sources, saying A says Foo, B says Foo, C says Foo, D says Foo, E says Foo, F says Foo, thus the scholarly consensus is that Foo. The list reflects scholarly consensus, and goes out on absolutely no original research limbs. Mak (talk)  06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria to be included to be considered major is what is original research. If what you are saying is true, then people from all 10 lists should be included on this article. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No, it's not that simple.  You are misreading the intent of that paragraph, which is to prevent editors from putting together arguments from sources A and B to support a third position they believe follows.  The authors of this list compiled a tally of names that appeared on the most published lists, and wrote about them, in considerable detail—a process which is logically distinct from the reference in the NOR policy.  It's not only one of the best lists on Wikipedia, it is a model for how to do a "most famous X" list. Antandrus  (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've never noticed the synthesis section in WP:NOR, but having read it, it doesn't apply here. Assuming the lists used to construct this article are indeed the most authoritative available, the methodology seems logically sound.  Nothing is being synthesized; the article simply attempts to derive a consensus of informed opinion on a single point:  Are these composers important?  An article that simply reports the consensus of a range of authoritative sources is not original research; it's an encyclopedic summary. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a logically sound process that's being done on Wikipedia. It's a great article that is completely true, but the process that is being used is original research. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Ned. As I said above, the crux of the synthesis policy is that you may not join "point 1" from "researcher A" with "point 2" from "researcher B" to derive "point 3".  That's simply not the case here; the article combines multiple lists of purportedly notable composers, all assembled by recognized experts (I'm taking that as a given here), and reporting the conclusion, that the consensus of experts (consensus being defined as a simple majority) is that this list of composers is notable.  The metholodology is transparent and logical, and the end result is encyclopedic. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This collection of sources is not the same thing as multiple sources for one thing. You are using a system where what A says is true is only true if B says it's true and C says it's true. This is not the same as A is true, B is true, C is true. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This list is using a specific criteria for inclusion that was invented ON Wikipedia. It's not a case of using multiple sources to show that someone is notable because of the requirement that it must meet 6 of 10 specific lists and excludes any other possible sources. If the process was different, the results would likely be the same or similar, and would not be a volition of WP:NOR. If that can be changed then I will retract my delete nomination. However, from the "warm" welcome I got after putting the OR template on the article I don't think the editors of that article will abandon their criteria they pride themselves on, so easily. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I requested that you explain your reasoning and removed the tag one time. I don't see that as uncivil. If you would like to propose a better method, or other sources, you are welcome to. The spirit of the NOR policy is to avoid people publishing their own research which isn't in keeping with other scholarly views. You have admitted that essentially the same list would result from other methods, implying that this method is a perfectly reasonable way to come up with a reflection of scholarly opinion. It's not that strange to have a collation of lists, and is certainly not only done on Wikipedia. Mak (talk)  06:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People can be politely difficult, to the point where fixing the article via new criteria did not seem likely. The criteria used is logical and perfectly reasonable, but it violates policy. Original research can have the same view as scholarly views and still be original research. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as much as I hate to fall back upon the words of our fearless leader...Mak (talk)  07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're taking Jimbo's words out of context. You are using good sources, but how they're being used is different in this situation. The list is saying A is true only if B says so and C says so. If all that was being done was citing other lists then that would be fine, but it's not. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he also said this. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A lot of people worked very, very hard on this list to ensure it was NPOV. That meant using reputable sources. Now the fact sources were used (unlike virtually every other such list) is being held against it. It's not OR, it's a synthesis of sources (as every decent article on Wikipedia should be). But if you want to lose a bunch of good editors for the sake of a bit of pedantry, that's up to you...--Folantin 08:03, 14 November 2006 (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.