Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operama

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operama

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

Delete non notable neologism [[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the overall direction (problem->solution) of the article, this WP:SPA article is probably more appropriately considered as promoting a firm: Operama Arts Administration Research Institute, which is starting up July-October 2014 according to their Wordpress blog [2]. Aside from its promotional bent, the article is riddled with unsubstantiated assertions: "Drama began in the United States during the 20th century". Really? Take a daytrip to Hades and the shades of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides may dispute that. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not entirely sure if it even exits but nonetheless we aint a dictionary. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, inaccurate and looks to be promotional blurb. Also appears to have a substantial copyright violation from here [3], which to my mind makes it a candidate to go asap – there isn't even any material that looks to be salvageable with a rewrite. Libby norman (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (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.