Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Savoy Opera Group

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 The fat lady has sung.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh University Savoy Opera Group

Deleted through prod process and recreated, so I present for your consideration. kingboyk 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original deletion

I apologise for not being able to participate in the discussion regarding deletion of the original article at the time but I felt it would still be useful to have a discussion regarding the article's inclusion, hence the re-posting.

In discussing this I thought it would be helpful to quote from reasons given to me regarding the article's original deletion, (see my talk page):

"Edinburgh University Savoy Opera Group The article had a prod tag which remained in place for 5 days. After this period, if no one fixes the article, it may be deleted. This is what I did. The reason cited by the user who placed the prod tag, Marc Shepherd (talk • contribs), was "This is a non-notable article about a student community theatre group. It is unencyclopedic and does not cite sources." I agree with this synopsis of the article. The subject is inherently non-notable. I hope this clarifies the matter. — Scm83x hook 'em 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)"

I am quite aware that universities do tend to be plagued by fly-by-night societies-I well remember the Hugga-Bugga Jaffa Cake Society (I ask you!) when I was at university, and that Wikipedia would be thoroughly clogged up by many articles on subjects like these.

Nevertheless, I would dispute that this subject is inherently non-notable. It is of interest in a number of respects.

The society contributes significantly to the cultural life of the city; the society is one of only two societies that regularly produce Gilbert and Sullivan operettas in Edinburgh. It has a loyal and substantial audience from outside the university, within the city and thus has a reach that extends beyond simply the university. I would add that this is not confined merely to the city as the society has performed in the Waterford Festival. One might say that it is a community group in terms of its roots, however I would consider Edinburgh to be a substantial community!

I am aware that the article is a stub and is in need of more detail but it is a work in progress and I daresay it will be expanded in reasonable time.

On another note, it has not escaped my notice that there are many societies of a similar nature that are listed which have not been deleted, for example

Leicester University Theatre

Dublin University Players

The Yale Society of Orpheus and Bacchus

and many others. I would add that the last one appears to be simply a glee club within its university and thus appears manifestly of less interest as an article topic.

I would urge that the article is retained.

Rgas 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for all the reasons given originally, and the criteria stated at WP:MUS. These articles tend to appear like weeds. A good half-dozen of them were deleted at around the time this one was. These others have the same problem. No one is suggesting that they do not contribute to the cultural life of their town. The question is whether a verifiable, neutral article, based on citable sources is ever likely to be written about a student theatre group. In most cases, the answer is no. Marc Shepherd 02:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are numerous student and community theatre groups worldwide, which is a good thing, but they are generally not notable. If a student theatre group is an important part of university life, it can be mentioned in the university's article. If a community theatre group is an important part of a town's cultural and artistic life, it can be mentioned in the town's article. I would vote for deletion of all the groups mentioned above by the proponent. --Ssilvers 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are dozens of student groups at every school, and they are not generally notable beyond their local area. There must be hundreds of schools with Savoyard groups. Fan-1967 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I would like to address a few of the comments made, which I will try to address in turn: (I’ll be as quick as I can)

As regards point of view, I feel the article does try to strike a neutral tone; I do not feel it seeks to particularly advertise the society, and instead merely appertains to what it is, what it does and makes some mention of alumni. If it is felt not to be neutral in tone, I would be reasonably confident that this can be remedied by editing of contentious statements after appropriate discussion on the talk page.

As regards verification and citations, the society’s productions have on occasion been reviewed (favourably) by critics of the national press (Telegraph, Scotsman and others): given time I can find citations for these and include them in the article. I will endeavour to do this as quickly as possible. As an asides, I note that the articles for the Royal National Theatre of the United Kingdom and the Glasgow Citizens’ Theatre do not include any citations except for their own web pages.

I am less sure of how to respond to Fan-1967’s comments. These comments refer to the generality of such societies, however I feel we should be discussing the specific case of this society. Further, there are not in fact many university (not school, I think this distinction is important) G&S societies as contended, indeed there are only four such societies in Scotland, including this one.

In terms of notability, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I would just quickly re-iterate that, it is of long standing, it has a certain notoriety and reputation at a national level, and it has significant alumni.

I am aware I’ve taken up acres of space here, and this all probably sounds like a bit of a rant :-) but I do feel very strongly about it: I won’t waste more space posting again unless there is anything else posted that invites further comment. I know it was probably irksome of me to re-post the article after deletion: I promise I will abide by any decision regarding deletion taken after this discussion. Having said all that I am not too proud not to beg for a stay of execution until I can include references to the critical reviews I mentioned and make any alterations of style considered necessary! Yours grovelling, :-) Rgas 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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.