Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where's Dick?


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Where's Dick?

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article contains no assertion of notability. The only reference shows that the opera was performed twice -- once in a worshop format and the eventual premiere -- but there is no evidence that it has been performed since 1989. I personally feel that an opera must have more than one full scale performance before it can be considered notable on its own merits, and there is no evidence that anything else that might have made it notable (some sort of disaster, or the final performance of a notable singer, etc.) occurred. DOSGuy (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Performed by a major opera company. Reviewed in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle. It presumably had a run of several performances at the Houston Grand Opera. The fact that it's never been performed again does not make it non-notable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific! If the article had contained that information, I wouldn't have nominated it. Is there a reliable source that it had a run of several performances, or is that just a presumption? DOSGuy (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP. The San Fran Chronicle article notes three performances were to be given.  With the kind of national press coverage it got, it certainly warrants remaining (but expanding, of course). Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well hold on now. Are we going to give an article to every opera that ever had three performances? Lots of things make the national news each day and are quickly forgotten. Notability requires endurance. Three performances isn't a long run, so is there any evidence that this opera has any sort of legacy, or was ever considered notable by anyone after its 15 minutes of fame were over? Perhaps a mention in someone's review of the years's operas, or some sort of award? Was it written about even once after it closed? DOSGuy (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. In addition the opera was listed in the book Recent American Opera by Rebecca Hodell Kornick (Columbia University Press, 1991) and profiled in the Encyclopedia of American Opera (page 421, McFarland & Co., 2006).4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first link is not a review, just a premiere date. If this is just a list of operas that premiered recently, it would be full of non-notable operas. Being mentioned in a comprehensive list is not evidence of notability. I'm in the phonebook -- another example of a comprehensive list -- but that doesn't make me notable. The second link appears to list some details about the play, but it's cut off, so it's impossible to determine if this is actually a review, or just a slightly more detailed listing in another comprehensive list of notable and non-notable operas. DOSGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second source is from an encyclopedia. Why would an encyclopedia be "reviewing" the opera? Why would it include a synopsis of a non-notable work? An encyclopedia is meant to provide neutral information on notable topics, not provide reviews.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This 2010 article in the Huffington Post also mentions the opera as being revelutionary for its time. If the opera were so forgetable, would someone still be talking about it 21 years later?4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add to this its entry in Operas in English: A Dictionary (Greenwood Press, 1999, p. 650). I have a subscription to Questia and can verify that its entry is not a one-line mention on a simple list. The entry describes the initial Omaha Opera performance, the principal singers in that performance and gives a brief summary of the plot. Entries in tertiary sources attest to notability. The existence of wide-spread coverage and review of the work, outside the city of its premiere, likewise attests to its notability. Notability is not temporary. Note also that this work was the first collaboration between a notable composer and librettist, and the first work by the composer to have a major premiere. In biographies of the composer for program notes (examples,  from PBS and The Kennedy Center) and in reviews and articles about his later work, it is almost invariably mentioned, e.g. . Readers will be curious as to what this opera was like, its performance history, etc. Incidentally, the article needs a lot of work. The premiere date was actually 24 May 1989 and the opera had a run of 8 performances . The librettist's name is also misspelled. I'm going to expand, correct and reference this article today, something I don't do unless I'm convinced the subject is notable and encyclopedic. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – per Voceditenore. It also seems the nominator has withdrawn the nomination (see above "Terrific! ... I wouldn't have nominated it." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more convinced than ever that this opera had 15 minutes of fame and never achieved true notability. No one has provided any evidence that it was ever written about after its mere 3 performances, except for appearing in comprehensive lists of notable and non-notable operas. DOSGuy (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So I guess you have decided to completely ignore its comprehensive inclusion in two opera encyclopedias where the opera has its own entry including performance details and plot synopsis? You have also ignored the fact that it had 8 performances not 3, and the recent article in the Huffington Post. Did you actually bother to read the above comments and look at the sources? You appear to have forgotten the first pillar of wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias." If a specialized encyclopedia covers the content than we should too. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it was 8 performances, though that still constitutes a short run in my mind. It is absolutely not true that anything that is covered in a specialized encyclopedia should be covered in Wikipedia, too. The Muppet Wiki has articles on every single Muppet ever made. The vast majority don't deserve their own Wikipedia article, and a significant number of them don't even deserve to appear in a list of less notable Muppets (such as those that appeared in only one episode, never to be seen again). Likewise, an opera that had only one run, never to be seen again, probably doesn't deserve its own article. Every topic under the sun has a specialized encyclopedia (Doom wiki, Commander Keen wiki, etc.). Specialized encyclopedias are the proper place for comprehensive inclusion of subjects that appeal to a specific audience, but are little known and non-notable outside of their particular niche. The should probably be an Operapedia for this article to appear in, if there isn't already. DOSGuy (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Muppet wiki is not a serious encyclopedia, and neither are any of your other poor examples. The two encyclopedias above are written by respected published academics in the field of musicology. They are not online encyclopedias written by amateurs which are full of fancruft but serious academic publications in print that are intended as a reference tool for research. These are exactly the sort of sources wikipedia requires us to use at WP:Verifiability. None of the source examples you gave would survive reference scrutiny. Stop making false analogies. Further, your arguement about niche topics holds no water because wikipedia literally is full of articles on niche topics, some of which have garned FA ratings. Pillar one clearly indicates a support for specialized content inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2012 (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.