Talk:Philadelphia Civic Opera Company

Let's "save" this article from speedy deletion

I have posted the following on the article's original editor, 4meter4,'s talk page and shall be monitoring this article's progress n the next 36 hours. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi User talk:4meter4

I think that you can improve this article and get it accepted as a "keeper" if you incorporate material from the Time articles directly into the text with appropriate refs. For instance, there's talk that their repertory was rather unusual - Strauss et al - so that's a claim to fame which makes them valuable in 20th C. opera history in the US.

At a quick glance, there is a lot there, and - yes - the company folded when another lady's company moved ahead and survived. How long I don't know....but are they still around?

Also, you can Google PCOC and see if you can unearth some other reputable sources. I shall put the "hold on" tag on for now.

Please comment here (the article's "Talk" page) on what you might be able to do.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (Another member of the WikiProject Opera)

I really don't see the need to alter the text that is already there. In researching the performance history of the company, the Times piece was a bit of an overstatement in its description of the group's 'unusual' repertoire. A typical season at the PCOC was mostly full of standards like Rigoletto, Tosca, Aida, Manon, Faust, etc. with maybe one or two unusual choices thrown in out of the 10 to 15 operas given each year. Regardless, the company holds an important place in the cultural history of the city of Philadelphia and in the history of opera in that city. Enough US premieres were given to warrant it a minor place in the history of opera in America. A large number of notable performers worked with the company as well which should say something towards its notability. In short, I believe sufficient notability has already been established. Certainly two non-trivial Times article mentions should prove that.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added several articles from The New York Times that corroborate the facts in this article. I only added a handful of them, but there were over a dozen nyt articles covering activities of the company. That should solidify anyone's concerns.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand the point I was making for wanting to see this article remain in place. (See bf above). I am not the one who wants to remove this article......

The point is this: you need to have in-line citations in the body of the article which substantiate the point(s) that you are making so that they appear to be not the opinion of an anonymous author but thst of a respectable publication such as the NYT. That is one of the ways that the article can demonstrate substance. Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly think in-line citations can be useful and beneficial, I don't believe they have anything to do with establishing notabilty which is the point of the deletion discussion as I see it. There doesn't seem to be any valid reasons to not keep this article (even citationless) per the policies at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion and WP:Deletion Policy. Your enthusiasm for citations is admirable and by all means go ahead and add them to the article. However, not having inline citations is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has certainly been cited in my 5 years of editing on Wikipedia, since (they claim that) people aren't going to verify by going to the articles themselves.......I think we're fine now. (See below) Viva-Verdi (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Speedy Deletion" tag?? VOTE HERE

YES: Article is substantial and significant. Viva-Verdi (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (Whoops, it's gone; don't think I did it......Well, hope it doesn't come back....) Viva-Verdi (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)