Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opera Management

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. Per WP:HEY — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Management

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge to Arts administration (due to Voceditenore addressing issues) ~~1. no indication of notability of this term 2. WP:COATRACK for book/advert/COI/SPA 3. refs 2 and 3 only tangentially related to term, so only a single source of an obscure book~~Widefox (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC) updated Widefox (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of opera management (lower case) is a valid one and much has been written about the area, especially from an historical perspective. See for example these journal articles and these books. Having said that, this article, as it is currently written, is quite clearly a coatrack advertisement for one (extremely) non-notable book with a very limited and idiosyncratic scope. It's apparently published only in Greek, and searches on either the author's name, book title, or ISBN turn up nothing on WorldCat, Google Books, or even Amazon. I'm minded to completely rewrite the article with proper sources, and then see if it's worth keeping. However, Opera Management by Minoas Pytharoulakis will not figure amongst the sources, given the preposterous statement in the original version of the article:

The term firstly appeared and described in the international bibliography at 2011, in the nominated Greek book 'Opera Management'...

Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - either complete rewrite/rename or delete and independent article is good. I'm for latter, but not much difference really. Can I push you to come down one side? Widefox (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite (also move to Opera management). I've completely rewritten the article. At the moment, it's still just an introduction. I'll add more over the next couple of days, although I'll wait to see if the article is kept before carrying out the bulk of the expansion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thanks to Voceditenore rewriting the article, the well-deserved reasons for this AfD have been addressed and rectified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for rewriting. My concerns are fully addressed. Considering how niche this topic is, and its overlap with Arts administration , a merge would seem beneficial for both articles for now. Widefox (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Personally, I think a merge is premature at the moment, and would oppose that. It would sit oddly in Arts management as both articles are currently written and the way that I plan to develop the "Opera management" article which will have a distinctly historical perspective. Let me develop the article first and then we can revisit it in a couple weeks... if necessary. There's no reason why every relatively short "niche" topic under development needs to be immediately merged into a larger article. Once that happens, often the narrower topic simply languishes and the larger one becomes a dog's dinner. If/when the narrower article does become developed, then there's the whole palaver of de-merging. So why make extra work? Incidentally, I notice you've also put a "merge" tag on the article. You can't have simultaneous merge and and deletion discussions in two separate places. The AfD needs to be closed as either "Keep" (or "Merge") first. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the merge tag from the article for now. It can be re-added once this AfD is closed one way or another, if necessary. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The version of the article which was nominated for deletion can be seen here. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- being as I've changed opinion to merge due to your good efforts, the former article is gone, and as nobody now is asking for deletion, per WP:SNOWBALL I was moving the debate on with switching to merge topic. I wanted to be clear that you shouldn't hold back editing in case your effort is deleted.
  - If I've understood your plan, writing "Arts management" as a historical article would be undue weight for a still contemporary topic, and I'm not at all convinced that skipping a parent article from "arts management" to "management" is logical. Category:Opera managers is parented by Category:Arts managers. I don't want to pull apart a new article, but the external link you put in is for Arts management. Given the number of opera managers, it seems I was wrong about it being too niche. Does this convince you to reinstate the "arts management" link? Widefox (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can reinstate the link to Arts administration, although that article is a mess and no help to the reader of opera management. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but there's a subtle difference between "administration" and "management", especially as the terms are used today. Opera management does not always involve administering an institution, even now. The external link is original to the article. I left it in while the article is under construction because that site has links to abstracts of articles which are potentially pertinent to the subject of modern opera management. See [1]. But these issues would be more appropriately discussed at Talk:Opera management. Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.