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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is pretty clear here, although the article could use some references (the links at the bottom were just that: links, not references). Also, as GuillaumeTell pointed out, why is only this discography being singled out? Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This seems to be an indiscriminate catalogue or directory contrary to WP:NOTDIR. If people want to buy a recording of this work, there are plenty of commercial sites that will supply this information. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Q to nominator: Could you specify what makes this list "indiscriminate", compared to less offending discographies? East of Borschov 22:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems indiscriminate in that it seems intended to catalogue all such recordings, regardless of their merit or notability. Music of this sort is often performed and recorded. Per WP:NOTDIR, it is beyond our scope to catalogue all such instances in an indiscriminate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Discographies are not any old catalogue. Several such discographies are featured lists and there is no reason why this article could not eventually be improved to that level. Specifically in the case of opera articles, the practice has often been to separate large discographies out into separate articles in order to manage the size of the main article. In reply to CW's responce to East of Borschov above, a complete discography avoids making arbitrary decisions as to merit and notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can well understand that you might want to do this but such accumulation of exhaustive detail for its own sake is generally frowned upon. It is completism but we aim for a summary style. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not exhaustive detail. In opera discogs, including this one, decisions are made on which roles are important enough to be listed, pirated recordings not released by reputable companies are excluded etc. As and when this article attains featured list status, the lead section will be expanded and discussion will include whether any of these recordings have achieved major classical music awards etc. Organising a small contained set of material does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As for summary style, the splitting out of a contained subtopic (a discography) from the main article on a work of music actually confirms to that policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems unclear whether or how decisions are made. It appears that they are made without reference to reliable sources and so may constitute original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peter Cohen.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that this article is totally beyond the scope of Wikipedia as per WP:NOTDIR and should therefore be deleted. It's not even a case of the article needing additional work, it's just fundamentally too unfocused and wide-ranging for a discography article in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot see what in WP:NOTDIR directly pertains to a discography of this nature (and would like to see a discussion as to what exactly in NOTDIR this article contravenes) and also suspect that every item on the list this would pass notability in its own right for a separate article. Furthermore, as a way of avoiding POV decisions it is a sensible development from "Selected Recordings" sections and in that light to be commended IMO. almost-instinct 02:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The deletion proposer seem to be unaware that discographies are part of modern scholarship. University libraries own recordings that have long ceased to be available commercially (and thus probably could not be found on commercial sites, as the proposer suggests). There are professional discographers, and they have their own scholarly journal (see [1]). And this is as it should be: part of our understanding of a work like Fidelio includes the various ways that artists have chosen to render it in performance. Opus33 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The journal you cite seems to be semi-professional, being open to private record collectors. In any case, many professionals keep catalogues of their exhibits, specimens, books and the like. It is not our purpose to reproduce these catalogues as we are not a database of that sort. Please see http://www.discogs.com for a site which supports such activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion immediately above. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Opus33. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter cohen and Opus33. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. --Folantin (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter Cohen. Ozob (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Opus nailed it. This particular type of list is essential to the mission of our project. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If this information were important or essential, you would expect to find it in the main article about this opera. It seems to have been spun off separately because it is not essential. Colonel Warden (talk)

• The nominator being a member of the m:Association of Structurist Wikipedians, I would like to quote from this association's page: "Combining too much information in a single article discourages users from forging ahead with more detail and new ways of looking at the topic at hand.". These discographies were not spun off because they were not essential, but to improve readibility of the main article. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – What's next? Opera discographies and related categories/articles? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter cohen and Opus33. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter Cohen and Opus33 and numerous others. It is still not at all clear which of the prohibitions listed in WP:NOTDIR is being referred to, as none of them seems to fit. Furthermore, since there is a well-populated Category:Discographies, I'm wondering why this particular one is being singled out by the nom. --GuillaumeTell 23:23, 4 August 2010 (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.