Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Archives Table of Contents

Categorization of Doctor Faustus Lights the Lights as an opera

This is an opera, and should be categorized as such. It is published as an opera in Stein's Last Operas and Plays, is commonly referred to as an opera in all the critical literature (see article for a start), and I remind you of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word 'opera':

"opera: a dramatic musical work in one or more acts, in which singing forms an essential part [...]; a libretto or musical score for such a work."

It has also been produced as such, not least by Robert Wilson at the Edinburgh Festival. DionysosProteus 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article starts with the words: "Doctor Faustus Lights the Lights (1938) is a libretto for an opera by the American modernist playwright and poet Gertrude Stein". Is this incorrect then? Are you saying that this is not a libretto? That Stein wrote music? Or are you saying there is no difference between a libretto and an opera, that they're the same thing? I'm a bit puzzled. -- Kleinzach 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you consult a dictionary for the definition of the word 'opera' in the English language, and your puzzlement may dissipate. It is used to refer both to a libretto and to a musicial score. This is because 'opera' is an inherently multi-medial art form, and by definition has more than one author. Stein, in every meaningful sense of the term, wrote operas. DionysosProteus 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's used to refer to the combination of the mediums, not a single one... I may be failing to see something here, and you may find this example annoying, but to me a libretto intended for an opera is no more an opera than an stand-alone overture from an abandoned opera project is itself an opera... Lethe 20:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The second definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary does not say "a libretto and musical score", it says, quite unambiguously, "or". And according to this definition, a score composed as an opera that lacks a dramatic text is still an opera. It is the good people at the Oxford English Dictionary that you are arguing with here, who are the experts on current language use. And I welcome any discussion designed to clarify the ways in which we use aesthetic terms; what I object to is the attempt to impose an partial and factually incorrect opinion on the encyclopedia at large. Besides which, Stein's opera has, in fact, been performed complete with score at the Edinburgh International Festival, directed, as I said, by Robert Wilson. On both accounts, then, it is quite definitely 'an opera'. DionysosProteus 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have come across this in baroque contexts. This an alternate meaning of the word "opera": it is not the primary meaning, or even the second, and it is certainly not a meaning of any interest to us. This is not what the word "opera" commonly means in the sliightest, and your meaning is a highly obscure one. We are writing for the majority here. Linguistic tricks are of no interest. Moreschi ^Talk 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "libretto" is far more common, and, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, this is the term we should use. Moreschi ^Talk 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite how anyone could define the main definition given in the OED as obscure or rare is beyond me. The OED has a very successful policy of indicating when usage is rare or confined to a particular historical period. That it may not be of interest to you, as many of the Wikipedia guidance pages remind us, does not mean it is not of interest to others. That your approach to the art form is partial is fine; that you wish to use this to define the works in a publication that seeks to provide facts is not. The meaning is not obscure in the slightest; go consult the dictionary or provide a citation that indicates why it should not apply! The term "musical score" is also common; that does not mean, as the dictionary points out in clear and unambigious terms, that both 'libretto' and 'score' are not 'operas'. Besides which, as I have explained several times now, it has been produced at a major international festival, which means that by even your definitions it qualifies as an opera. The front of the book says 'opera'; all the critical literature says 'opera'. These are, I believe, the criteria on which wikipedia rests its authority, not subjective senses or the majority of unsubstantiated opinions held by editors. The naming convention states that naming should proceed from what the majority of users would recognize, and the OED is the only objective measure of current language use to have entered the discussion so far. DionysosProteus 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look. You are using the third meaning of the word opera, quite distinct from all other meanings. The word "libretto" is fsr more common, and this is what we should use per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In common parlance, a libretto without music is should not be referred to an opera, as we are writing for a general audience here, not a specialist. Your specialist usage of the word "opera" should not be used when a far more common term is available. Moreschi ^Talk 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the full OED. If you read the whole entry, not just extract a phrase out of context - it says "music is essential" in the first sentence - it's clear that the word 'opera' has been used in the modern sense of a performance with music since the 17th century. The OED gives an extensive series of quotations in English from 1644, none of these refer to a libretto as an opera. Please check it again. -- Kleinzach 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think categorising DFLtL as Category:Opera does any harm. However, I can't bring myself to accept the OED's dictum "...a libretto or musical score for such a work" in the general sense. The second part ("musical score") doesn't present a problem - it also contains the libretto. However, I've only ever seen a libretto alone described as an "opera" when published as study texts, and always in the form "Ludwig van Beethoven - Fidelio, Opera in 2 acts" (see here) - the composer gets the billing, no mention of the librettist (Joseph Sonnleithner). So in short: calling DFLtL an opera does not concur with common usage, but doing so is harmless. Michael Bednarek 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach you have conflated the 1(a) and 1(c) definitions offered by the OED. I did not claim that music was not an important part, though the OED says 'singing' there. The published texts of both Gertrude Stein (2 vols) and Brecht's muscial works are examples of the dramatist being credited. Hence "dramatic and muscial" work. DionysosProteus 07:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

An opera = libretto + musical score. If either element is missing it isn't really an "opera". --Folantin 07:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

DionysosProteus's case is based on a single phrase in a single dictionary. The OED was not personally transmitted to us by God, and like other books it contains mistakes, misphrases and misleading passages. It's an important work but not an authority on opera and it doesn't trump all the standard reference books on the subject (Grove, Oxford, Viking etc.).

Looking again at the article, I think what the OED editor meant to do was to give an "also by extension its constituent parts" style of definition. In other words "Opera is XYZ with PQR and DEG, and by extension the word can refer to the libretto or score of the same title of which they are a part" (for example, "Where were you last night, Herr von Hofmannsthal?". "I was working on the new opera.") -- Kleinzach 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point. That the word is used to describe its two constituent elements; like it says in the very first phrase "a dramatic and musical..."; I have no illusions about the divine nature or not of the OED, but that it contains "mistakes, misphrases and misleading passages" is nonsense; it's not a wikiproject. If you have something to offer from "the standard reference books on the subject" that disagrees with my claims, by all means cite it. The same goes for a "musical". I understand that the dramatic element doesn't interest you; but the project isn't designed just for you. The point is that just as both the musical and dramatic elements are constituent parts, so too authorship consists in the composer and the dramatist. The claim was, quite bizarrely, that Stein and Brecht are not the authors of those operas and musicals. DionysosProteus 05:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

People who write music are called composers, not authors. -- Kleinzach 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DionysosProteus mentioned Robert Wilson's production of DFLtL. I can find no description of R. Wilson having directed this as an "opera"; it seems to me Hans Peter Kuhn's music was more of the category of incidental music, stage music. Was there any singing? What's more, it appears in Wilson's œvre under "Theatrical works", not under "Opera", not under "Music theatre".

I think DionysosProteus misunderstands what the main claim in this thread is. It's not whether G. Stein wrote DFLtL or not - it's whether the work by her is an opera.

When her libretto is set to music with singers and an orchestra it becomes an opera and will be categorised as such. Internet searches show that there are several such works: David Ahlstrom (1980); Meyer Kupferman (1958); Larry Lockwood; several student/fringe/experimental productions where the composer is uncredited (may have been incidental music); the adaptations "Marguerite Ida & Helena Annabel" (1993) by François Ribac; a multi-media adaptation ("House/Lights", music by H. P. Kuhn). There are probably more. If an operatic treatment of Stein's work is added to Wikipedia, it will be classified as such. A mere libretto should not.

In the meantime, if DionysosProteus is so concerned about exhaustive categorisation, he might want to add the Category:Works based on the Faust legend to DFLtL. Note that the work appears in the article List of works which retell or strongly allude to the Faust tale under Drama, not Opera.

I wrote before that I think categorising DFLtL as Category:Opera is wrong but harmless. We should however consider the likelihood of having to repeat this discussion every few years when a baffled Wikepedia user seeks an explanation why it is so categorised.

This concludes my case against categorising G. Steins work as "Opera". Composers write operas, authors write librettos. I spent way too much time on this - I want to go back to writing this article about a banal little operetta by a little known composer. Michael Bednarek 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The term 'author' is used in the sense of 'authorship'; it is a common usage in modern aesthetics, so done to avoid the Romantic overtones of 'creator' and to describe the aspects shared by painters, novelists, poets, dramatists, composers. That wikipedia doesn't list Wilson's production doesn't mean it didn't happen! I was at the festival. You are correct to observe that it has also been staged as a play with music, most notably the Wooster Group's production to which you referred. That it is an opera is not just demonstrated by its performance as such, but also by scholarly references to it as such, which are a verifiable fact in wikipedia's sense. DionysosProteus 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Wilson's website [1] lists DFLtL as "a play by Gertrude Stein" . -- Kleinzach 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gertrude Stein operas and plays and 6 others at Cfd

I've recommended this category for renaming to Category:Libretti by Gertrude Stein. Cfd is here. -- Kleinzach 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also see Category:Paul Dessau which is on the same page here.

There are now at least seven DionysosProteus-created categories up for deletion or renaming at Categories for discussion on August 22 (3 categories), August 24 (2 categories), August 26 (2 categories). -- Kleinzach 23:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

all referred by the same person, I might note. It does not make them correct. DionysosProteus 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. They were not all referred by the same person. I referred the two opera-related ones, someone else referred the drama ones. -- Kleinzach 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Opera titles: when to disambiguate?

We have a clear (and hitherto uncontroversial) practice on disambiguating opera titles, noted on the project page here: if the opera has a unique name no disamabiguation is needed and the article title is the same as the opera.

Sparafucil evidently disagrees with this practice, insisting that Mathis der Maler be entitled Mathis der Maler (opera) even though there isn't another article called Mathis der Maler. Can he explain?

As always, reforming or improving the system is admirable providing we look at the whole picture and make any necessary changes right across the board (which in the case of opera articles means approx. 1,100 articles plus about 600 red links in The opera corpus). -- Kleinzach 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to leave it to other people who are more experienced in these matters, but it's a bit quiet :-) It would be out of step with the rest of the site, which doesn't include "(novel)" at the end of Slaughterhouse-Five, as a) it's the original on which other uses of the name are based and b) the film of the same name having "(film)" in its name means that the original doesn't need additional clarification as it's the derivative works which need to distinguish themselves from the main article.

Edit: The symphony being more performed than the opera (well of course, the resources it requires are much smaller) shouldn't be important in determining significance either, see Fight Club - far more people will have seen the film than read the book, but the book, being the original, works best here without a "(novel)" added on the end. Lethe 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now moved the title back to the usual style: Mathis der Maler. (Mathis der Maler (opera) is a redirect.) Hope that makes sense to everybody. -- Kleinzach 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added one of the usual quick links up at the top for people who typed "Mathis der Maler" and expected to get the symphony. I think the later link to the symphony can be left as is. There's no need for a reverse link, as the opera is mentioned right at the top in the symphony article. --GuillaumeTell 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I left my explaination on the article's talk page, thinking I had pointed Kleinzach there (it might be good to put in a link to this discussion). My revert was simply on the principal of if it isnt broke, dont fix it (and I'm happy enough with the present pointer). If it actually is a WP policy that there should always remain one article without a disambiguating description, I stand corrected!

On my userpage we were discussing Miss Julie. The article on the play is presently doubling as a disamb. page, and following the split Julie (opera) was (understandably) incorrectly linked to Miss Julie (opera), neither to be confused with Miss Julie (Alwyn) or the Opera Corpus' Julie (operetta) (nothing to do with Strindberg, I trust?). It seems to me we might wish to favor (composer) in such cases and clarify the naming policy thus:

To avoid ambiguity the word opera, or the name of the composer, are added to the title in parentheses. The disambiguation (opera) may be used to distinguish an opera from a name or work in another medium (Falstaff (opera)) and retained when creating another opera article if the first is famous enough to be easily guessed (Macbeth (opera), Macbeth (Sciarrino)), but it is acceptable to use (composer) instead (Isis (Lully)). Likewise Otello need not be modified to distinguish it from Otello (Rossini), but in closer calls it is usually clearer to use (composer) (Montezuma (Graun), Montezuma (Sessions), or Emperor Norton (Mollicone), Emperor Norton (Rosen), Emperor Norton (Aird), Emperor Norton (Axelrod)).

Sparafucil 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To put the Miss Julie problem finally to bed, I've made Miss Julie (disambiguation) following WP:Disambiguation. (I can't find any red link in The opera corpus to 'Julie (operetta)'.) IMO the 'naming policy' you suggest is unnecessarily complicated. The present text (explaining actual, current practice) is easier to understand. -- Kleinzach 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the Strindberg page looks much better (if only the synopsis went beyond act one!), and I was misremembering Julia (operetta). If there's no problem with the present text, then there is no objection to moving Miss Julie (opera) to Miss Julie (Rorem) and the redirect page Montezuma (opera) to Montezuma (Vivaldi)? Sparafucil 06:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Miss Julie (opera) is fine as it is. Please don't start moving these pages around again. They follow the existing practice. It's a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it however fascinated you may be with wiki-disambiguation . . .' Also the Vivaldi title is Motezuma. It doesn't need disambiguating.

If you really disagree with our practice and feel strongly about it, please make a clear and reasoned proposal here - bearing in mind the whole corpus of opera pages, many of which have (opera) in the article title. They will all presumably have to be changed if there is a consensus in favour of your suggestion. - Kleinzach 07:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just remembered we have another Montezuma opera at Montezuma (Graun), so that Montezuma (opera) page shouldn't be a simple redirect to Vivaldi. --Folantin 07:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It seems the redirect was made over a year ago. I've corrected it so it now goes to Montezuma which is the disambiguation page. (The Graun should really have been Montezuma (opera) to be consistent with our practice.) -- Kleinzach 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Practice? We have two practices, Isis (Lully) and Miss Julie (opera), both consistent with the wording on the project page. If my favoring the former is so offensive, you might try a rewrite yourself instead of insisting it's perfectly clear already. It is pretty sad that neither of us can let go of this, isnt it? ;-)

The redirect looks good. It's worth noting that there is a 'Vivaldi Montezuma'; in the early 90's when the libretto was the only known source a parodistic reconstruction was made under that title, and I've left a note on the Montezuma page. It ought to be mentioned in Motezuma as well once someone masters the sources. Didn't Grove have a Montezuma (Vivaldi) article? Sparafucil 06:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try one more time. The practice of adding opera in parentheses (and similar identifiers for other art forms etc.) existed long before I began on WP. The explanation on the project page describes the way it's been done up to now. I have no personal stake in this. (Re your suggestion, I'll have another look at it to see if it can be made any clearer.)

In The opera corpus there are now 384 titles with opera in parentheses. If you want to change the system then please make a proposal to rename all of them. Please don't make WP:POINT attacks by making random changes. -- Kleinzach 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that is meant as a reasonable plea and not an accusation; as we know my changes to the corpus have been confined to changing red (opera) links to blue (Lully) links to existing articles. My proposal is just that we have a consistent way of naming new articles, the criterion being whether (opera) leaves room for wrong guesses. Sparafucil 09:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a consistent and agreed way of naming new articles representing the practice of editors here dating back to the beginning of this project. It is explained on the project page.-- Kleinzach 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, has anyone verified that the existing red (opera) articles dont already have (composer) articles? Sparafucil 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you again of the large numbers involved here - thousands of articles. The reason for having a systemmatic approach (as explained on the Project page) is to avoid errors. From time to time, articles are duplicated (started under different titles) but because of categories and wikilinks, we usually catch them quite early on. (See the archives for examples.)

If The opera corpus is used as a point of departure for 'needed' article titles (as for example with 'Composer of the Month') any problems will be obviated and the list itself will be accurate. If you ignore the opera corpus and create your own article titles, or make WP:POINT attacks (e.g. Mathis der Maler), then we will have anomalies that are tedious to correct.

If you are still unhappy about this - for whatever reason - I suggest you make a clear (yes, clear) and fully-detailed proposal here (under a new topic), explaining how any change in practice would be implemented overall. I will be arguing against making any changes, not because the present system is perfect (the software isn't - so neither are titles or categories), but because it simply isn't worth the considerable effort necessary to change it. If it ain't broke, why fix it? - -- Kleinzach 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Metastasio libretto pages

We don't usually have seperate articles for libretti. Obviously they are normally covered by articles on the individual operas to which they were set. However the libretti of Metastasio are exceptional because of the large number of settings (sometimes thirty, forty or fifty of them). At the moment there appear to be four of them: Artaserse, Demofoonte, L'Olimpiade, Didone abbandonata.

IMO the Metastasio articles are useful, but at the moment they are haphazardly categorized and not very accessible. Should we create a new category for them, called Category: Opera libretti ? Is this a good idea or do we, perhaps, need a different approach? -- Kleinzach 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. "Libretti by X" is a viable category and perhaps the last large-scale categorising we could do. It might be worth having a "Composer of the Month"-style drive to deal with Metastasio's libretti in the near future. --Folantin 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, also agreed, both with Kleinzach and Folantin. Metastasio is a colossal figure in opera history (stating the obvious) and really deserves more than he currently has on WP. Moreschi ^Talk 16:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm enthusiastic about having a Metastasio push/drive (or whatever we want to call it). Thanks for starting Category: Opera libretti. Do we also need Category: Libretti by Metastasio? Or is that overcategorization? Incidentally Grove have extensive lists (three pages in total) of settings of his libretti arranged title by title. For example, 86 settings of Artaserse are given.-- Kleinzach 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov at Afd

Someone has put this article up (for merging with Boris Godunov) here. -- Kleinzach 10:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd be reasonable if Boris Godunov (opera) wasn't already so long. But we do need to copy over some of the Shostakovich information. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some sections of the main article can be made into separate articles - for example the discography. It's a promising article - not far off featured article status. -- Kleinzach 12:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It would need someone enthusiastic enough to do the inline citations before putting it forward even for GA. And it's not much over 60K adding in the article to be merged and including all the lists. So, not much of a rush to split. My personal hobby horse for music articles is that they should include some musical illustrations before going to FA. With Boris I would suggest having the same passage in different orchestrations as an explanation of what the changes were about.--Peter cohen 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for current singers and opera in general

Kleinzach enquired about some sources I had listed here. They're now buried in the archives somewhere, but I've re-printed and expanded them on my sandbox page. Feel free to add them (or the link to my sandbox) to the Project Page, if you think they'd be useful. Best, Voceditenore 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great. In case anyone else is interested, here is the list of singers now needing verification/sources: Abbie Mitchell, Alice Tully, Anne Azéma, Bjørn Talén, Fiona Keys, Marina Prior, Maryetta Midgley, Monika Gonzalez, Muriel Foster, Nelson Martinez, Richard Stilwell (bass-baritone), Thomas Hampson (baritone), Vladimir Stoyanov. -- Kleinzach 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have done refs for Alice Tully and Abbie Mitchell. The Maryetta Midgley one looks as if it might have come from a print version of a UK Who's Who or perhaps from one of the Midgley's themselves. There's nothing on the web except her name in various cast lists, and a mention in a biography of her brother Vernon who teaches at the School of Music, University of Canterbury (NZ). The same person seems to have written unreferenced stubs for the entire Midgely family - Maryetta, her brother Vernon, her dad Walter, and her mamma Gladys. Thomas Hampson, and Richard Stilwell should be easy to reference, but the Hampson one needs serious wikifying. It's like a record company blurb. Meanwhile, Nelson Martinez, bless him, is very borderline notable, but what the heck. ;-) Will continue my web snooping tomorrow. Best, Voceditenore 14:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Bjørn Talén I've found his recordings are available on a CD published by Preiser Lebendige Vergangenheit so he was obviously an important singer, but I still haven't come up with any good references. All the online stuff is in Norwegian! Any ideas? -- Kleinzach 13:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not fabulous ones but this at least confirms his dates of birth and death and notability in Norway. And this confirms the bit about the farm. (Both are in English) Best, Voceditenore 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also not sure what to do about the Midgleys! -- Kleinzach 00:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability (or lack of it) for two unreferenced singer articles

In my peregrinations amongst the unreferenced singer articles cited in the previous section, I have some doubts about these two...

• Marina Prior, not really notable, and definitely not an opera singer. Someone should at least remove the OP banner.

• Fiona Keys even less notable. Looks very young. Apart from Wikipedia and its various clones, nothing on the web except brief mentions in cast lists for Melbourne City Opera [2] (mostly bit parts and understudy); singing Carmen in Carmen the musical in a couple of provincial theatres; and her listing as a 2006 member of the Victorian Opera Chorus [3]. I have a feeling this one was self-written.

Best, Voceditenore 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Marina Prior is a difficult one. I did remove the banner and was going to suggest we leave it to another project to decide her notability, but then I saw she had sung the title role of The Merry Widow professionally (which IMO rather indicates that she is (perhaps marginally) an opera singer) so I put it back. What do other people think of this one? -- Kleinzach 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Marina Prior is definitely very notable in Australia - she owns "Christine" in The Phantom of the Opera here. Whether that or her title role in The Merry Widow qualifies her as an opera singer, I leave others to judge. I think she was partnered in Phantom by Anthony Warlow who does count as an opera singer. Maybe her agent's blurb can shed some light on it. She also performs regularly in concerts (e.g. here and here) with David Hobson (tenor) who is definitely an opera singer. Michael Bednarek 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks conclusive. Were you considering verifying her? Perhaps you are the best placed editor here for Australian stuff! -- Kleinzach 07:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Church and Debbie Harry sang in concerts with Jose Carreras. So that makes 'em opera singers too! Just joking. She seems to have done a fair amount of Gilbert & Sullivan in addition to The Merry widow, so I guess the opera project banner is appropropriate after all. I also managed to find quite a lot of stuff via this and this which doesn't show up on ordinary Google searches. (I've added several of the articles as refs.) Best,Voceditenore 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what verifying entails. Is there a Wiki document on this? Or can you e-mail me some pointers? Michael Bednarek 07:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I usually try to avoid the jargon! It just means providing a source(s) that shows she is worth having in WP. (I thought you would be the best judge of this.) -- Kleinzach 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a notability tag on Fiona Keys on 9 August, but there was no reaction. I have now put it up for deletion. -- Kleinzach 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)