Deletion of List of important operas

Comment: In a lot of ways this should be deleted because massive editing still hasn't solved fundamental  and  problems. The solution might be to decide on outside authorities (what are the five or six authorative opera guides?) and stipulate that any opera listed must have a non-trivial entry in all of them. Unlike most other articles that pop up on AfD I see a group of dedicated editors at work here, so I'm hoping the problems raised in this AfD will get a good hearing on the talk page. So I propose a '''Keep''' &rarr; '''Wait''' &rarr; '''Eventually Relist''' strategy. Yes, that amounts to putting the article on probation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Definition or no definition, I still maintain the title - and therefore the fundamental premise of the article - is POV/OR. At the very least, it should be renamed. The article itself, if it passes AfD, will need to be overhauled, because it is written like a music review - very unencyclopedic - and filled with rampant opinions, observations,  and , with language like '''"A moving work"''', '''"Mozart takes on Gluck at his own game with this richly scored work"''', '''"memorable"''', '''"ethereal beauty of Mozart’s perfect setting"''', '''"hilarious comedy"''', '''"The Wolf's Glen scene will still send shivers down your spine"''', '''"arguably the best"''', '''"all guarantee an exciting night at the opera"''', '''"We won't reveal what happens in the Epilogue"''', '''"touching moments lead the audience to the inevitable, heartrending conclusion"''', etc., etc. I mean, come ''on''. This is ''not'' an NPOV article in title, premise, or content in any way, shape or form
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WEASEL||WP:OR)