Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Leitner

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 keep. Sandstein 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Leitner

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A declined A7. Could not find any indication on notability, either in the article, or in a WP:BEFORE. None of her works have ever materially charted, and no proper RS has ever done any kind of piece on her (e.g. zero SIGCOV) – E.g. why would Wikipedia? All I find are blogs, Instagram-type posts and some small refs like local Irish free newspapers on upcoming preformances (here). I will leave it to the AfD community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and every other basic notability criterion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at http://db.musicaustria.at/node/81882 - she has a list of recordings and international positions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC) - Also adding https://www.egonwellesz.at/e_wellesz_archiv.htm - rare repertoire in South Africa[reply]
- Comment That is a discography; if that was the criteria for a BLP, we could include everybody who every recorded a classical/jazz piece. The problem is that her Wikipedia article is the major "plank" of her notability – it should be the other way around (e.g. us summarising RS on her, not disography lists). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a discography? An entry in the Austrian musicians' database? A list of concerts? Here's also https://www.wienerzeitung.at/startseite/archiv/68963_Konzert-am-Wochenende.html performance at traditional Vienna hall as soloist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is existence, but not notability? If the rap music sector got its act together and started equivalent databases for every rap performance, would we allow them to be used for GNG, of course not? I could make the same argument for authors (all of whose publications are recorded on various databases, but that doesn't justify a BLP). We need to be chronicling RS that profile her as a notable subject (e.g. even one SIGCOV); but these are just directory-type listings I am afraid. I don't think that classical musicians should be held to a lower GNG standard than all others just because a database records their existence; but no classical music magazine wants to do a piece on her – think about it, if the many magazines/journals of the classical music industry don't want to do a piece on her, why would Wikipedia? sorry for this. Britishfinance (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need sources that go beyond showing professional performances to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more time for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 - the page of Reviews on her website [1] includes reviews of her CDs and performances from 1993 to 2019, from Die Presse, Vienna; The Cape Times (South Africa); Gazeta Wyborcza, Warsaw; Irish Music (magazine); and others. These can easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO#1 is not WP:GNG, which she must meet, but doesn’t. References to recordings in minor RS does not make a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, actually. WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (my emphasis)

WP:MUSICBIO is one of the subject-specific guidelines, which are explicitly stated to be an alternative to WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, I don't think MUSICBIO overrides GNG (unlike say WP:NPROF). The header of WP:MUSICBIO usefully states: Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. In addition, the sentence introducing the 12 criteria also states: may be notable. I have never read the 12 criteria of MUSICBIO as being SNGs that override GNG (unlike for example, the 8 criteria of WP:NPROF that explicitly state: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable, or WP:NBOOK that also explicitly state A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria; and thus both do override GNG).

However, let me go through the media list on her website (I am on mobile at the moment and can't seem to access the links through several of them; of the ones I have seen, they look like small regional papers/non-RS (e.g. Irish Music (magazine) is pretty low-grade as an RS and while it could scrape for an Irish traditional musician, it would not really be applicable to an international classical musician); however, let me give it a full look and I will return to see if they could meet GNG. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 Subject must meet SNG or GNG. This one meets SNG. But RebeccaGreen has found some RS. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above – MUSICBIO is not the same as NPROF (i.e. it does not over-ride GNG); GNG still applies. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion - as I quoted above, the intro to WP:N states that the subject-specific guidelines are alternatives to WP:GNG. Within WP:NMUSIC, WP:NALBUMS specifically requires that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER don't say that.

However, the criterion which I believe that she meets actually requires "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", so arguments about whether SNGs override or are alternatives to the GNG are moot, for this AfD. I would not call capital city newspapers in Austria, Poland and South Africa "small regional papers", myself - they are exactly where I would look for reviews of musicians performing in those capital cities. You may not have read the reviews in Irish Music (magazine), or the partial track listings on her CD page - they do make clear that some of her albums, such as Music of Irish Drawing Rooms, Sky Magic, Fire Magic, Music of Great Irish Houses, etc - include traditional and classic Irish tunes, and Celtic musical traditions more generally. Irish Music seems eminently well placed to review them, and any other musicians playing Irish music. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wordings of WP notability guidelines are (unhelpfully) variant, however, where an SNG explicitly states that it does not guarantee notability (as per WP:MUSICBIO, and several other SNGs, like WP:NFOOTY), then GNG still must be met. At this stage, this BLP doesn't have a write up in a material RS that would meet GNG (e.g. SIGCOV)?

She would never be considered an Irish traditional musician (in any sense), and her Music of Irish Drawing Rooms is the recital of international classical pieces in Irish stately homes. There is a legion of classical musicians who do this circuit in Ireland (and Britain), all of whom have CDs for sale after their recitals, but none of whom are worthy of a Wikipedia BLP?

Having a BLP in Wikipedia should mean something – E.g. you should be clearly notable. Mentions of your recordings/pieces and coverage in small or non-notable RS, does not add up to a BLP, and there is no WP:PRESERVE here. Why bother having notability if cases like this could pass it (e.g almost all recorded traveling professional classical musicians can have a BLP)?

Her Wikipedia BLP would be – by far – the biggest "plank" in her notability? However, it should be the other way around? Britishfinance (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added reviews to the article, so other editors can assess whether there are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by Gerda Arendt, RebeccaGreen and Wm335td to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bearian stated before me, great work and now passes WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2020 (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.