Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of important operas/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of important operas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Moreschi, WikiProject Opera
This 2007 FL has a few significant issues that prevent it from meeting modern standards:
- The whole basis of the list is questionable. How can we determine in Wikipedia's voice what an important opera is? Here, the term apparently means an opera appearing in a majority of nine lists of operas. How are we to know that these are the only such sources that should be consulted? Even if they are the right sources to use, we have the issue that all of them are over 15 years old, so by definition the list cannot be updated with new operas.
- Many Grove references are tagged as needing individual pages cited for verifiability.
- The lead isn't up to modern standards. It's very short and directs readers to the main opera article for a historical summary, instead of providing a brief one in this article as you might expect. I can't even complain about the lead being uncited, since there isn't much in there that would require a reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - but on the other hand, at least everything in the list is cited, and for Grove we can AGF - and it gets 100-200 views/day- and it doesn't seem to me as if there is anything actually misleading in it (although I personally would disconcur with some of the 20th century entries and omissions ,and I see there's nothing for the 21st century.....)....Seems to me it needs some rewriting rather than deletion. Maybe retitle and verify as 'most performed' operas, using performance statistics? --Smerus (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Would tend to agree with OP: not up to current standards. And how can our "Wikipedia voice" say what is "important" (a different title could address the second concern). N2e (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Agree with both comments above. Criterion for inclusion is vague, the lead begins with and uses out of date wording "The operas listed...", "This list provides...". Actually the whole lead isn't a summary of what is contained below as per requirements, but instructions on how to read it! Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I'm not really convinced that we could have any such "important" criterion being defined objectively and non-controversially enough to please enough of the people enough of the time. The list itself (apart from the lead) is quite useful, but ultimately boils down to the opinions of a handful of English-language books. Not convincing enough for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. The selection criterion is arbitrary and requires original research to select the lists used. Even if rewritten, this article can never be objective enough for FL status. Kranix (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Agree particularly with the concerns over the criteria used for inclusion, which at least verges on being a blend OR and SYNTH. ——SerialNumber54129 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: I would have to agree with the above comments on the concerns regarding the criteria for inclusion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is pretty clear, delisting. --PresN 15:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
\{\{subst:Fl bottom\}\}