This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page
In your dreams,
Focus :). Anyhow, Carl Siegemund Schönebeck has articles on both the German and Catalan Wikipedias
[1],
[2] and the refs check out, entry in a music encyclopedia
[3] makes him notable. If moved into article space, however, it must have an attribution template on the talk page as this is a direct translation of the German Wikipedia article. It also needs a lot of superficial clean up, but nothing to keep it out of article space.
On the other hand,
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lear on the 2nd Floor is a non-starter. This opera has never had a professional performance, and in fact its sole performance was at UC San Diego a few months ago. Some of the information can be added to
Anthony Davis (composer) (although not the blow by blow scene descriptions). If it ever gets a performance from a notable professional opera company with actual reviews in the press, and/or receives a multiply reviewed recording on a notable label, that will be the time to make a stand alone article. My feeling is the WP article is attempt to raise its profile and maybe get a professional performance. It's supposed to be the other way around. Kudos to the
article's creator for being upfront about their COI, but this kind of says it all. Notable operas get articles pretty fast here and don't need the help of a paid editor. See also
[4]. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I moved the first one to
Lawrence Golan (conductor) after doing considerable work on it. Interestingly, he was the plaintiff in
Golan v. Holder. Otherwise, I might not have bothered. The second one was basically OK, although a little rough around the edges. I've moved it to
Kerstin Avemo and strongly recommended to the creator that since he is autoconfirmed and has created several articles already, he shouldn't use AfC anymore. His answer was quite interesting:
[5]. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)reply
That is interesting indeed! Thank you once again for your hard work. That's commonplace at AfC; some editors are actually quite good at what they do and continue using the process, which is good as they get to correct some aspects of their editing and learn useful Wikipedia tidbits along the way. It's nice to guide them through the extraAfC world when we figure out who they are. Regards,
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
13:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I'd !vote delete at an AfD, and so would my colleagues, I'd wager. The "CV" is very puffed up/padded and has lots of pointless name-dropping, but does not conceal the fact that there is no recording career as a soloist, nor has he been Principal horn with a leading orchestra which could conceivably override the dearth of independent coverage. The sources are all primary and I can't find anything else. Left a note on the draft recommending that it not be accepted in its current state. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You were quite right to decline it,
FoCuS! I've left a further note on the draft to that effect and removed the most egregious copy-pasting, but there's still a lot of it. UGH!
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Well, that editor has been busy, hasn't he? Observe
the original user name. Apart from 5 sentences about the female half of the piano duo, the entire article (text, discography, references, etc. has been pasted in from
Andrey Kasparov, the other half.
Duplication Detector. I'm afraid they only get to publicize their recordings once. In my view this draft should be created as a redirect to Kasparov's article with the lede in Kasparov's article edited to reflect that and a very brief section on the duo itself, no more. The Kasparov article also has numerous problems. How on earth the AfC reviewer who moved it to article space could rate that mess as "B" class is beyond me. I'm going to tag it for clean up and notify the Classical Music project to see if anyone wants to take the red pencil to it. I also left a lengthy comment on the draft with options. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. The
Invencia Piano Duo draft, hasn't been moved yet.
Andrey Kasparov was moved to article space last year by an experienced editor
[6]. I would have moved it too. It had enough there to pass notability and sufficient refs—it didn't need to be perfect. None of its flaws were fatal ones. But I certainly wouldn't have rated it "B" class. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Ah,
FoCuS, a truly embarrassing moment for Wikipedia. :/ Thanks for letting me know about this one! A well-referenced article on a subject linked from
Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics (a list of topics that can currently be found in modern music encyclopedias and are needed on Wikipedia). Rejected by the reviewer for lack of notability with completely false comment that there were only 2 "independent references" (there were 5) and the subject having only 1 major published work. Never mind that this treatise published in 1492 is considered a seminal work on music theory. Plus the multiple books and journal articles on his work which were all listed in the article in addition to the inline cites. I'm pretty sure that the article was written by a distinguished music professor to boot. Anyhow, it's now at
Domingo Marcos Durán and I've written the creator a grovelling welcome and thank you note. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Move it to article space now and tag for clean-up of the ref formatting. I haven't got the time to do it at the moment, but none of its flaws are fatal. He's clearly notable. He has a 200 word entry in the The Grove Dictionary of American Music (2 ed.). See
[7]. As a rule of thumb if a person has a dedicated entry in a notable encyclopedia or biographical dictionary (and Grove is very notable), they meet our criteria for inclusion. You might want to spread the word amongst your colleagues about that. Another thing they can do is click on the red link for the article and check if that page is linked to
Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics. Example:
Domènech Miguel Bernabé Terradellas. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Not ready for article space. She's reasonably notable via the productions she's appeared in (several of them in leading roles) and her discography, but the article is completely unusable in this state. It's referenced to his private communications with her (absolutely cannot be used, and everything referenced to that needs to be removed), a blog (only useful as an external link, not for referencing), ditto Operabase, plus various potted biographies on the websites of the theatres where's performed and Naxos Records—none of which are independent of the subject. The creator needs use reviews etc. in independent, non-self-published sources. These links provide a lot of material he can use
[8],
[9],
[10]. Virtually all of them are in Italian. But he should be able to get the various gists with google translate.
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Not ready for article space. Reasonably notable, i.e. would scrape a pass at an AfD if a lot of other editors put in the work to "save" it. But the referencing makes this a non-starter at the moment. Two of the references are to books about the chap he studied under, which I suspect do not mention him at all and there are no page numbers or quotes. The third one is to the completely unreferenced Italian Wikipedia article
it:Pier Paolo Pacini. There are references out there, but the creator needs to do the work.
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Not ready for article space, one potted biography from Malmo Opera House, and an article about a children's opera in which he created the title role where he is given a brief mention. So far, the career is not a particularly significant one. He'd need leading roles in several leading opera houses. Malmo Opera is not one of them and/or a discography of two recordings singing significant roles on notable labels. The AfC draft is simply a paraphrasing of
this. He has an equally poor article on the Swedish Wikipedia
sv:Samuel Jarrick, basically copied from
this.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Above are my latest verdicts. I don't think any of them would be loss to Wikipedia if they weren't created. Hence I'm not prepared to do anything to improve them, and neither should you. They're not hopeless, although in the case of Jarrick, it may be impossible to clearly establish notability, but the editors need to do a lot more work. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've added yet more to the conversation at your page today. More importantly, the creator of
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alessandra Marianelli went ahead and submitted it for review again with no significant improvement in referencing, one sentence of text, and two lengthy tables with empty citations. What's the policy on removing those review-waiting templates? I was sorely tempted to. They are simply wasting the time of other reviewers and artificially lengthening the queue. Sigh.
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks again, Voce. Yes, that is commonplace, and several discussions tried to address that issue, the lastest being
this one. The consensus seems to be nominating them for MfD after a considerable amount of submissions, but a flexible hand is allowed by fellow reviewers as a cost effective solution, i.e. removing the template until they either give up or substantially improve their drafts. We'll see what happens. Keep up the effort!
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
15:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
OK
FoCuS, I've been bold and removed the submission templates. I also restored the decline notice and your comment, both of which the draft's creator has removed. I left a comment on the draft about what I had done and explaining why. Hopefully the message will eventually get through.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Looks like
DGG is on it. The subject is a clearly notable historical figure. The referencing isn't fab, but it's plenty good enough. This is exactly the kind of draft that needs to move into article space so other editors can improve on it—Wikipedia's strength. That can't happen while drafts languish abandoned in a lonely workshop.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
(b Hamburg, 15 June 1927; d Ahrensburg, 20 Nov 2006). German musicologist. She studied the piano and attended the Schule für Musik und Theater in Hamburg, where she qualified as a private music...
The draft is pretty... er... rough, needs a lot of clean-up, copyediting and wikifying. It's looks like a not so good translation of the
German Wikipedia article. They also have the wrong author for the Grove article. She did coin the term, Ars subtilior (See
[11]).
Hi
FoCuS. Hmmm. This is definitely a notable and useful topic. See the last paragraph of
Jean-Joseph Mouret#Works here. But... the article is badly written, full of original research, seemingly based based on their interpretation of the music from watching YouTube + a bit of cribbing from
here and the rest is unreferenced (but true-ish) facts about the historical background. If it went into article space now, it would be (rightly) festooned with multiple clean up tags and then hacked down to a quarter of its length. It looks like someone's class assignment. No comment on what grade I'd give it. The title is a mess too, but that can be fixed. What do you think? Depends on what's more discouraging to the fledgling editor, asking them to try a bit harder before acceptance or accepting it with the inevitable scenario I described.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I suppose I could give it a bit of a copy edit and ask for the author's help. I'd obviously have to leave a lot out, but it'd be better than no article at all. Let's see if I can get in touch with him/her. I could use a bit of help with referencing though. Cheers,
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
19:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! . I almost missed this one. Yes, he's notable. He has
an article in The Canadian Encyclopedia, among other things. I don't know what the link is doing in the external links section. It ought to be used in the references too. The other refs are OK too. The article is a bit..' er... rough around the edges, but I'd move it into article space and tag for copyediting, etc. He'd definitely survive an AfD. and probably as speedy keep. I'll be away for the next three weeks. Until then, all the best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! This one already exists at
Augustin Daly and has done since 2003. It appears the draft creator went ahead and added his material to the existing article a few weeks ago. Will try to get to your other ones shortly. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I wouldn't pass this, nor bother to work on it. No significant career as a concert pianist or recording artist, and as
one source put it:
Who is Tristan Lauber? That's the question Ottawa music lovers have been asking since the board of the Ottawa Chamber Music Society announced Friday that Lauber, a 38-year-old Montreal piano teacher, will complete the programming for this year's Ottawa International Chamber Music Festival....
Half the references are are either to his own website (or similarly primary) and articles he's written. Most of the remaining ones are duplicate of him taking over the Ottawa festival programming in 2007.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't pass this, nor bother to work on it. No significant career as an opera singer—a few roles in minor provincial companies, no notable recordings. The review is from a website that publishes reviews on request for $465 (!). Need I say more.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't pass this mess, nor bother to work on it. However, it would probably scrape a pass at AfD if it's ever turned into anything resembling an encyclopedia article. I've left an extended comment on the draft page.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The subject has maybe a 50% chance of passing an AfD, although the current referencing is extremely poor. He's directed for a couple of reasonably notable, if not top-tier, opera companies,
Opera Holland Park and the
Scottish Opera touring company. Note that
opera-britannia.com is an amateur website and
this one is the official website of Opera Holland Park with cherry-picked review quotes, not the original reviews. They're not in the article at the moment, but reviews from multiple British newspapers for his productions are available. This strikes me as part of a concerted effort by 3 new SPA editors to promote a relatively new Bulgarian opera festival which "supports young opera singers", i.e. non-notable ones ;) by creating one for the company, and filling in the red links in the draft. See also
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Operosa and the recently created
Darina Takova, a notable singer but a poor article, referenced solely to a blog review and... er... the Operosa website. Anyhow, tell the creator of the Martin Lloyd-Evans draft to get to work on producing a properly referenced draft with multiple reviews in mainline newspapers. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've cleaned this up (a lot!) and moved to article space myself. Passes MUSICBIO on the recordings. Clearly an autobio, however. I removed and/or copyedited a bunch of stuff. Best
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
This one's a bit tricky. The only way she would pass with the current referencing is
WP:MUSICBIO #9 (Has won or placed in a major music competition). Some of her prizes are properly referenced, but I have no idea if those are major international competitions. Suggest you get a view from WikiProject Classical Music. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've just removed 3/4 of the draft. It was verbatim and/or closely paraphrased from
http://www.lucyparham.com/biography.htm (as if the horrific puffery weren't a clue in itself). I've left an extended comment on the draft. In the meantime, I recommend declining this. The referencing is completely inadequate for a BLP and for the claims made. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Well, he probably does scrape notability. But it needs a lot of work on copyediting and referencing. I'll get to it in the next couple of days, and then move it to article space.
Hi
FoCuS, me again. Hmmm. This is a toughie. I think it could eventually pass, but not now. The existing references are inadequate. I have found some reviews of one of the books, and may be able to some for the other ones. If I do, I'll add them and move it to article space. Maybe decline for now? But leave a note to the effect that I'll see what I can do with it over the next week or so. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. The script simply will not work for me. That's why I manually move drafts that I accept. I can't decline them or mark them under review. Frankly, I don't care. The script is awfully inflexible and impersonal. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Me again,
FoCuS. I see another reviewer quite rightly has declined it. Proper referencing would easily establish notability, but the creator needs to do some work here, and he's not important enough for me to do it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah, he passes, despite the referencing being a mess here. I'd say go ahead and move it but remove all the references to Wikipedia articles first, and tag for clean up, especially the ref formatting. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
This passes too. Had a big review in Billboard (I've added it) + it's a work by two notable people. Note the wikilinks in the article probably go DaB pages so it needs to be tagged for that. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Already moved to article space by another editor. Frankly, this was very marginal and I wouldn't have approved it. Virtually all the references are simple concert announcements, press-release based, or written by the subject himself. He is not all notable as an opera singer and his roles are inflated, not sung in major opera houses in full-scale professional productions. Oh well.
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Nah,
FoCuS. Not worth the effort I'd have to put in to analyze all 47 references. He could well scrape a pass at AfD anyway (although not as an opera singer) simply because he and his agent have been very busy getting him interviews.
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Interesting case,
FoCuS. A notable encyclopedic subject (with articles on both the German and Dutch Wikipedias) seemingly created by someone with the goal of publicising his own (non-notable) business which makes reproductions of Kaps pianos (see
[12]). I've extensively edited this to remove the plugs for the creator's business, added some proper references, and copyedited for coherence, grammar, etc. Go ahead and accept, but tag with {{refimprove}}{{orphan}}, {{copyedit}}. It needs proper cats as well. When accepting, I suggest moving it to
Ernst Kaps Piano Fabrik with an additional redirect from
Ernst Kaps Pianos. When you've accepted it, I'll add some commentary on the talk page re the stuff I removed and why. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. You're right! Decline. None of the references indicate he passes
WP:ANYBIO and he most certainly does not pass the alternative criteria at
WP:MUSICBIO. He's at the very beginning of his career. He might become notable some day, but is not now. I'd advise the article's creator stop the attempt to create an article about him at this point. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline. Referencing is totally inadequate. He probably would pass the notability criteria if properly referenced to independent reliable sources. I've left extensive comments for the creator on the draft itself. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I see this is already declined by another editor and rightly so! No independent sources. Why? Because they basically hire themselves out to entertain at private events. The first version had been deleted as blatant copyvio from
this. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Better than a 50% chance of surviving an AfD, despite the appallingly formatted and documented references. I'd say accept it, but remove the references to YouTube and Wikipedia and tag for clean up, especially {{citation style}}. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline. References are very weak - they simply verify the performances but I suspect she would pass an AfD on those. I also added a big-ish article on her in the Washington Blade and a ref for the
Outer Critics Circle Award nomination. However, the material on her personal life and many of the quotes, do not meet the referencing standards for a BLP. The creator needs to put the work in.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline. Completely lacking inline citations and all refs are to his official biographies, nothing independent of him. I have no idea what's available out there, but frankly, he isn't sufficiently notable that I'd put the time in trying to to find it. The draft's creator needs to to that. Tell 'em that independent sources in Arabic are OK, if it's too difficult to find significant coverage in English. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. It was but I archived it, as I thought you had seen it my May 16th answer, which still applies:
This one's a bit tricky. The only way she would pass with the current referencing is
WP:MUSICBIO #9 (Has won or placed in a major music competition). Some of her prizes are properly referenced, but I have no idea if those are major international competitions. Suggest you get a view from WikiProject Classical Music..
This was their answer, which gives some useful links, although it doesn't address the issue of whether any of the awards/prizes are major ones. I'll ask 'em. The current sources are largely concert announcements and some reviews, all of her debut CD. (She'd need 2 recordings on a notable label to pass
WP:MUSICBIO #5. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've vastly truncated, copyedited, and referenced this. It was a complete dog's dinner created by an editor (editors?) with an obvious COI. I think she'd now scrape a pass at AfD. Go ahead and accept it. Note that you'll need a history merge as this was cut and pasted from the multiply declined
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dulce Beatriz (last declined 29 May 2013). Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I see this was declined 2 days ago by another reviewer but it passes
WP:MUSICBIO on the three recordings. I've added 4 more independent sources. You should move it into article space and tag for further clean up. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah,
FoCuS, she's notable. I added an extra ref just to make sure. Go ahead and move it and tag with {{tone}} or {{copyedit}}. It's way too promotional and full of infelicities like "Maestra De León de Vega", "acclaimed", etc. It stands a much better chance of getting fixed once it's in article space. I did a quick check for copyvio, given the tone, but it seems OK. Looks like it was "custom written", if you know what I mean.
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline, a non-notable former session musician turned non-notable drug counselor—not because of the references' format (easily fixable), but because of their quality. Not a single one of them covers the subject in any depth. Several don't mention him at all and the remainder are simple track credits and not very impressive ones either. Also, this is a BLP. Where did all that unpublished biographical information come from? Rhetorical question. We can't publish that. Especially problematic is the picture of his ex-wife and mention of their divorce which is entirely undocumented.
Voceditenore (
talk)
06:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've fixed it up and cleaned it up a bit and added several more refs. Definitely notable, shouldn't really have been declined, but I can see the reviewer's point given the state it was in. Go ahead and move to article space where it can be further improved.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. After the recent decline, I had a look and added a couple of references (reviews of 2 of the albums they produced) but I still don't think it's enough. There may be more out there (probably requiring library work), but the creators are going to have to find it. It's not a sufficiently important label for me to spend time on it. It is mentioned in multiple WP articles
[13], but it's hard to tell if that was just advance legwork from other COI editors. None of the mentions are referenced. Note that the creator of this draft has the same name as Cameo's distributor (Wyastone Estate) and has been very busy getting the Wyastone name into multiple articles
[14], although sometimes reverted
[15].
Voceditenore (
talk)
06:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've vastly truncated this and rewritten with references. It was a blatant copyvio from
here, hence the wildly unsuitable tone. My view is that with the new references, this probably does pass
WP:MUSICBIO criteria 5 and 8. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. UGH! Needs to be cut to 4 sentences—literally. He is mentioned in a few sources in India but only concert announcements basically and in one review of a performance by an artist whom he accompanied. He's also appeared as the accompanist on several recordings, but I'm not sure how notable they are, and frankly don't care enough to find out. Maybe ask at WikiProject India? This is quite different from
Draft:Subhen Chatterjee, which I think you should move to article space. See my comments above. I'll try to get to the rest of the folks above sometime next week. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I haven't forgotten about you. I've just been horribly busy. I'm leaving for Italy, away for a month. I'll take at look at these when I get back. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Dear Voceditenore: I found an old draft about this organization, and looked up some references before realizing that it was a copy-paste remnant. I deleted the draft, but are any of these useful in improving the mainspace article? —
Anne Delong (
talk)
15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
Anne. I'm in Italy for the next month with poor internet access, so can't work on it 'til I get back, but it's worth keeping and getting into shape. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS!
Edwin R. Fissinger is basically OK. I fixed all the references to him as "Dr. Fissinger". The other issues are relatively minor, not worth a festoonment of banners.
As for
Draft:Ingrid James, she may be borderline notable in Australian jazz circles. I have no idea—it's not my area. But it's up to the creator of that fluff to reference it properly with independent sources. As of now there are zero. I wouldn't waste any time on it, frankly.
And apropos
Draft:Ambre McLean. You're right about the chart listing. That needs a rock solid source for the chart position. It's the only potentially viable claim to notability. Not to mention the "award-winning" description. A local contest for "emerging artists" hardly justifies that claim. I assume you've also noticed the... er.. parallels between the draft's creator and the name of her latest record company. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for all that. Yeah, Ambre's creator just posted a message on my talk page claiming she charted on some fringe publication. I think I'll decline it. Did you like my
Honey and Rue?
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm more than happy to oblige. Let me know if I can help you with any more "gaps". I quite enjoy doing the research for music-related projects. Cheers,
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I need to look more closely at McWilliams. However, Lynn Freeman Olson is definitely notable. I've formatted the sources with links and added authority control. I'd say to sprinkle the sources around the article as inline refs and accept it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS!
Element Quartet is mildly notable. The problem with musicians and ensembles that were prominent in the UK in the 1950s is that there is a dearth of material online. Referencing can be done, but it's a lot of work. I'll see what I can do with referencing that one. As to Ernest Element himself, he seems reasonably notable. He's got an entry in British Music (published in 1948 and only available in snippet form on Google
[16]): "ELEMENT, ERNEST. Violinist, b. Wolverhampton, Staffs, January 5th, 1909. Studied under Hytch, thereafter placing himself with Paul Beard, Henry Holst and Carl Flesch for successive periods...". But
Draft:Ernest Element & Element Quartet needs to be drastically cut. The amount of quoted copyright material is completely unacceptable. The book about Robert Simpson used as a reference for the quartet premiering his works is probably accurate, but it's self published (
Xlibris). More about the ballet chap in a mo'.
Voceditenore (
talk)
06:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Me again, Hi
FoCuS. Hmmmm. Martin Lodge is marginally notable, albeit in the very small pond of New Zealand composers. Gets a mention in
The Oxford history of New Zealand music. There is other commentary on his music in places, e.g.
"Pacific Rock, for solo viola by Martin Lodge, with its busy, brawny perpetual mobile gestures interlarded with sliding figures, clearly demonstrates the influence of Watson's composition [...] (
21st Century Music, Volume 9).
The draft is dreadful though, written like a résumé/press release. And, unreferenced BLP-violating trivia must go, e.g.
"Lodge lives on a lifestyle block outside of Hamilton with his wife, noted writer Gail Pittway. They have two children, Alexandra and Max" .
The creator clearly knows the subject personally (possibly one of his students?) and it shows in the text. I'd reject it until they provide proper and extensive referencing, not just one review of one album, and remove all peacockery and all claims and assertions (especially evaluative ones) which cannot be reliably sourced. It's not a subject I'm interested in working on. Unless you are, put the ball back in the creator's court. PS This is a very frank and probably undiplomatic assessment. Don't link to it directly when communicating with the editor. PPS What the heck is a " lifestyle block"???
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I see another reviewer moved it to article space yesterday, and probably rightly so from looking at the refs. I've been aware of that draft for over a year but had been studiously ignoring it because of the obvious COI shenanigans which
came to head two months ago. I give such drafts my very lowest priority unless another AfC explicitly asks my advice. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Wow,
FoCuS! This one's a pain to search for, given the football player of the same name and from the same town and the fact that he's not awfully well known outside Romania. However,
this article in the Ziarul Financiar seems to confirm the George Enescu Prize for his composition (If for oboe and electronic media). He got another, lesser prize for the same work, see
here. Apart from that I couldn't find much biographical info, although there seem to be mentions of him in various concerts in Romania (all in Romanian and I haven't looked at the contents closely). There is a mention of him in
this book (Art music in the Balkans). Might be enough, especially the Enescu Prize. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk) 15:53, 29 May 2015
Hi
Smorfe. I was referring above to biographical information that is completely independent of the subject. The bio on
Contemporary Romanian Musicians site is not independent. It can be used to reference biographical information in the draft but is not useful for establishing notability (the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). However, as I told
FoCuSandLeArN, I think the subject's notability is probably established by having won the Enescu Prize. The German Wikipedia article is referenced solely to the subject's official website, and in any case Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. I notice that your user name is the same as the subject's website (smorfe.com). If you have any affiliation to Adrian Borza, personal or professional, you need to read
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance when editing under those circumstances. Best wishes,
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Sorry about the late reply. I see that another reviewer moved
Draft:Charles-Victor Dubois to article space and rightly so, in my view. Draft:Herbert Sucoff is tricky. The notability here is pretty marginal. The obit is a case where I think the NYT is acting in its capacity as the "local newspaper" for the NYC area. No other obituaries appear elsewhere in the US. I checked WorldCat and his published music is held in a miniscule number of libraries. I think the only way this would be sure to pass an AfD, is if the article could establish that the ensemble he founded was notable, i.e. Sea Cliff Chamber Players, with reasonable coverage and preferably documentation of them premiering notable(ish) works by other composers, not just his own. The evidence for the claim "His compositions have been performed in prominent concert halls, largely in the New York area but also outside the United States", is not independently verifiable from the reference given (print copy of what appear to be liner notes but not online.) If they are liner notes, the claims are not independent of the subject. Hope that helps. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Me again,
FoCuS. I've also placed a version of these comments re Sucoff on the draft itself as guidance—primarily for the creator, but also for reviewers. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
You're welcome,
FoCuS. Frankly, if I were you I'd review it and fail it. It would at least cut the queue by one and I honestly don't think it passes in the current state. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Yes, he (
Draft:Manfred Hemm) is definitely notable. Lots of performances in leading roles in leading opera houses, and the reviews to prove it. He also created the title role in
Gottfried von Einem's opera Der Tulifant. Plus a discography that would let him pass on
WP:MUSICBIO alone. Not that it adds to his notability, but he used to be married to
this lady. Dreadful draft though. Needs cleanup and much better referencing. Shall I put out a call for help at WikiProject Opera? I might be able to get to it myself in a few days if no one else does. Still thinking about the maltesers.
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)reply
OK,
FoCuS, now for the Maltese and the Belgian.
Draft:Peter Paul Ciantar is dreadful. I hate "hails from" and the listing of his hobbies, but he may well be notable in... er... Malta. It all depends on that first reference which rather fudges the issue. If he actually has an entry in Dictionary of Maltese Biographies, he might scrape a pass. I haven't got a clue.
The Belgian (
Draft:Harmen Vanhoorne) may be kind of well-known among ...er... cornettists. But there really isn't much about him at all, apart from having won these brass band contests and only one recording on a Belgian label which I've never heard of. But it's probably worth keeping this around for a while in case something else shows up.
Hmmm. I see this was accepted at AfC. Probably the right decision, but it needs a lot of copyediting. The creator seems to be an admirer rather than a COI editor, but the article comes across as very promotional even if that wasn't the intention.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! The
Agim Hushi article is dreadful, but I suspect he's notable and it could be "proved" if one looked hard enough for citations. I'd leave it for now. When I get back from Italy in September, I'll see about de-pufferizing and referencing it. I suspect by the time I'm finished... the article will be a stub that's shorter than its reference section.
Draft:Elin Soderstrommiiight eventually scrape a notability pass. But it would be a ton of work finding adequate references and the current state of the draft is somewhat akin to a pig pen. This is one of those cases where, unless you are personally interested in putting in a lot of work for very little encyclopedic value, it's better to leave the ball in the draft creator's court. I note that she almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Observe the "role reversal" with the creator of
Mary Soderstrom (another very problematic article).
I see that
On Site Opera was accepted and probably rightly so. As for
the interesting discussion, I tend to avoid those like the plague. They make my brain hurt . I'm off to Italy next week—a part of deepest, darkest Tuscany with not fab internet connection—and staying a month. Yay! Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This one is clearly notable. It should not have been rejected, but cleaned up slightly to remove puffery and fix the English. There were already enough refs to establish notability. I've added yet another + authority control. If I were you I'd move it to article space.
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'd say he passes but it needs better refs. There are a lot in the Russian press
[19] + there is a lot of stuff in his article on Russian Wikipedia
[20] which interestingly hasn't been updated to include the Tchaikovsky Competition
I've added four refs to substantial coverage. She's also been broadcast on
Ö1 (very notable Austrian radio station)
[21]. A niche artist/genre but a notable one. I'd pass it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't think I'd pass this one. He's basically a high school music teacher, and latterly a teacher in the Conservatory of Ho Chi Minh City. Not really enough to pass
WP:MUSICBIO. There may be coverage of him in the Vietnamese-language press, but I kind of doubt it. Note also there's some very inappropriate BLP speculation, which suggests that hard facts about his life and career are not available.
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I haven't forgotten you :). I'll start plowing through the list tomorrow. I'll add my comments beneath each one in the list but won't ping each time unless you want me to. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I haven't forgotten you. I've just been really busy both on- and off- Wiki. I'll try to get to some of these next week. In the meantime, you might want to drop a note at
WikiProject Classical music re the Milhaud articles. Someone there may be willing to give them a polish. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! It was sent to AfD and kept back in 2005. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Holvik. The article is lousy and the notability is very marginal. I might have a go at cleaning it up and seeing what sort of independent referencing I can find. Might be worth holding off on this one. She may have some significant recordings.
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page
In your dreams,
Focus :). Anyhow, Carl Siegemund Schönebeck has articles on both the German and Catalan Wikipedias
[1],
[2] and the refs check out, entry in a music encyclopedia
[3] makes him notable. If moved into article space, however, it must have an attribution template on the talk page as this is a direct translation of the German Wikipedia article. It also needs a lot of superficial clean up, but nothing to keep it out of article space.
On the other hand,
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lear on the 2nd Floor is a non-starter. This opera has never had a professional performance, and in fact its sole performance was at UC San Diego a few months ago. Some of the information can be added to
Anthony Davis (composer) (although not the blow by blow scene descriptions). If it ever gets a performance from a notable professional opera company with actual reviews in the press, and/or receives a multiply reviewed recording on a notable label, that will be the time to make a stand alone article. My feeling is the WP article is attempt to raise its profile and maybe get a professional performance. It's supposed to be the other way around. Kudos to the
article's creator for being upfront about their COI, but this kind of says it all. Notable operas get articles pretty fast here and don't need the help of a paid editor. See also
[4]. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I moved the first one to
Lawrence Golan (conductor) after doing considerable work on it. Interestingly, he was the plaintiff in
Golan v. Holder. Otherwise, I might not have bothered. The second one was basically OK, although a little rough around the edges. I've moved it to
Kerstin Avemo and strongly recommended to the creator that since he is autoconfirmed and has created several articles already, he shouldn't use AfC anymore. His answer was quite interesting:
[5]. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)reply
That is interesting indeed! Thank you once again for your hard work. That's commonplace at AfC; some editors are actually quite good at what they do and continue using the process, which is good as they get to correct some aspects of their editing and learn useful Wikipedia tidbits along the way. It's nice to guide them through the extraAfC world when we figure out who they are. Regards,
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
13:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I'd !vote delete at an AfD, and so would my colleagues, I'd wager. The "CV" is very puffed up/padded and has lots of pointless name-dropping, but does not conceal the fact that there is no recording career as a soloist, nor has he been Principal horn with a leading orchestra which could conceivably override the dearth of independent coverage. The sources are all primary and I can't find anything else. Left a note on the draft recommending that it not be accepted in its current state. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You were quite right to decline it,
FoCuS! I've left a further note on the draft to that effect and removed the most egregious copy-pasting, but there's still a lot of it. UGH!
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Well, that editor has been busy, hasn't he? Observe
the original user name. Apart from 5 sentences about the female half of the piano duo, the entire article (text, discography, references, etc. has been pasted in from
Andrey Kasparov, the other half.
Duplication Detector. I'm afraid they only get to publicize their recordings once. In my view this draft should be created as a redirect to Kasparov's article with the lede in Kasparov's article edited to reflect that and a very brief section on the duo itself, no more. The Kasparov article also has numerous problems. How on earth the AfC reviewer who moved it to article space could rate that mess as "B" class is beyond me. I'm going to tag it for clean up and notify the Classical Music project to see if anyone wants to take the red pencil to it. I also left a lengthy comment on the draft with options. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. The
Invencia Piano Duo draft, hasn't been moved yet.
Andrey Kasparov was moved to article space last year by an experienced editor
[6]. I would have moved it too. It had enough there to pass notability and sufficient refs—it didn't need to be perfect. None of its flaws were fatal ones. But I certainly wouldn't have rated it "B" class. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Ah,
FoCuS, a truly embarrassing moment for Wikipedia. :/ Thanks for letting me know about this one! A well-referenced article on a subject linked from
Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics (a list of topics that can currently be found in modern music encyclopedias and are needed on Wikipedia). Rejected by the reviewer for lack of notability with completely false comment that there were only 2 "independent references" (there were 5) and the subject having only 1 major published work. Never mind that this treatise published in 1492 is considered a seminal work on music theory. Plus the multiple books and journal articles on his work which were all listed in the article in addition to the inline cites. I'm pretty sure that the article was written by a distinguished music professor to boot. Anyhow, it's now at
Domingo Marcos Durán and I've written the creator a grovelling welcome and thank you note. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Move it to article space now and tag for clean-up of the ref formatting. I haven't got the time to do it at the moment, but none of its flaws are fatal. He's clearly notable. He has a 200 word entry in the The Grove Dictionary of American Music (2 ed.). See
[7]. As a rule of thumb if a person has a dedicated entry in a notable encyclopedia or biographical dictionary (and Grove is very notable), they meet our criteria for inclusion. You might want to spread the word amongst your colleagues about that. Another thing they can do is click on the red link for the article and check if that page is linked to
Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics. Example:
Domènech Miguel Bernabé Terradellas. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Not ready for article space. She's reasonably notable via the productions she's appeared in (several of them in leading roles) and her discography, but the article is completely unusable in this state. It's referenced to his private communications with her (absolutely cannot be used, and everything referenced to that needs to be removed), a blog (only useful as an external link, not for referencing), ditto Operabase, plus various potted biographies on the websites of the theatres where's performed and Naxos Records—none of which are independent of the subject. The creator needs use reviews etc. in independent, non-self-published sources. These links provide a lot of material he can use
[8],
[9],
[10]. Virtually all of them are in Italian. But he should be able to get the various gists with google translate.
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Not ready for article space. Reasonably notable, i.e. would scrape a pass at an AfD if a lot of other editors put in the work to "save" it. But the referencing makes this a non-starter at the moment. Two of the references are to books about the chap he studied under, which I suspect do not mention him at all and there are no page numbers or quotes. The third one is to the completely unreferenced Italian Wikipedia article
it:Pier Paolo Pacini. There are references out there, but the creator needs to do the work.
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Not ready for article space, one potted biography from Malmo Opera House, and an article about a children's opera in which he created the title role where he is given a brief mention. So far, the career is not a particularly significant one. He'd need leading roles in several leading opera houses. Malmo Opera is not one of them and/or a discography of two recordings singing significant roles on notable labels. The AfC draft is simply a paraphrasing of
this. He has an equally poor article on the Swedish Wikipedia
sv:Samuel Jarrick, basically copied from
this.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Above are my latest verdicts. I don't think any of them would be loss to Wikipedia if they weren't created. Hence I'm not prepared to do anything to improve them, and neither should you. They're not hopeless, although in the case of Jarrick, it may be impossible to clearly establish notability, but the editors need to do a lot more work. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've added yet more to the conversation at your page today. More importantly, the creator of
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alessandra Marianelli went ahead and submitted it for review again with no significant improvement in referencing, one sentence of text, and two lengthy tables with empty citations. What's the policy on removing those review-waiting templates? I was sorely tempted to. They are simply wasting the time of other reviewers and artificially lengthening the queue. Sigh.
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks again, Voce. Yes, that is commonplace, and several discussions tried to address that issue, the lastest being
this one. The consensus seems to be nominating them for MfD after a considerable amount of submissions, but a flexible hand is allowed by fellow reviewers as a cost effective solution, i.e. removing the template until they either give up or substantially improve their drafts. We'll see what happens. Keep up the effort!
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
15:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
OK
FoCuS, I've been bold and removed the submission templates. I also restored the decline notice and your comment, both of which the draft's creator has removed. I left a comment on the draft about what I had done and explaining why. Hopefully the message will eventually get through.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Looks like
DGG is on it. The subject is a clearly notable historical figure. The referencing isn't fab, but it's plenty good enough. This is exactly the kind of draft that needs to move into article space so other editors can improve on it—Wikipedia's strength. That can't happen while drafts languish abandoned in a lonely workshop.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
(b Hamburg, 15 June 1927; d Ahrensburg, 20 Nov 2006). German musicologist. She studied the piano and attended the Schule für Musik und Theater in Hamburg, where she qualified as a private music...
The draft is pretty... er... rough, needs a lot of clean-up, copyediting and wikifying. It's looks like a not so good translation of the
German Wikipedia article. They also have the wrong author for the Grove article. She did coin the term, Ars subtilior (See
[11]).
Hi
FoCuS. Hmmm. This is definitely a notable and useful topic. See the last paragraph of
Jean-Joseph Mouret#Works here. But... the article is badly written, full of original research, seemingly based based on their interpretation of the music from watching YouTube + a bit of cribbing from
here and the rest is unreferenced (but true-ish) facts about the historical background. If it went into article space now, it would be (rightly) festooned with multiple clean up tags and then hacked down to a quarter of its length. It looks like someone's class assignment. No comment on what grade I'd give it. The title is a mess too, but that can be fixed. What do you think? Depends on what's more discouraging to the fledgling editor, asking them to try a bit harder before acceptance or accepting it with the inevitable scenario I described.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I suppose I could give it a bit of a copy edit and ask for the author's help. I'd obviously have to leave a lot out, but it'd be better than no article at all. Let's see if I can get in touch with him/her. I could use a bit of help with referencing though. Cheers,
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
19:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! . I almost missed this one. Yes, he's notable. He has
an article in The Canadian Encyclopedia, among other things. I don't know what the link is doing in the external links section. It ought to be used in the references too. The other refs are OK too. The article is a bit..' er... rough around the edges, but I'd move it into article space and tag for copyediting, etc. He'd definitely survive an AfD. and probably as speedy keep. I'll be away for the next three weeks. Until then, all the best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! This one already exists at
Augustin Daly and has done since 2003. It appears the draft creator went ahead and added his material to the existing article a few weeks ago. Will try to get to your other ones shortly. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I wouldn't pass this, nor bother to work on it. No significant career as a concert pianist or recording artist, and as
one source put it:
Who is Tristan Lauber? That's the question Ottawa music lovers have been asking since the board of the Ottawa Chamber Music Society announced Friday that Lauber, a 38-year-old Montreal piano teacher, will complete the programming for this year's Ottawa International Chamber Music Festival....
Half the references are are either to his own website (or similarly primary) and articles he's written. Most of the remaining ones are duplicate of him taking over the Ottawa festival programming in 2007.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't pass this, nor bother to work on it. No significant career as an opera singer—a few roles in minor provincial companies, no notable recordings. The review is from a website that publishes reviews on request for $465 (!). Need I say more.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't pass this mess, nor bother to work on it. However, it would probably scrape a pass at AfD if it's ever turned into anything resembling an encyclopedia article. I've left an extended comment on the draft page.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The subject has maybe a 50% chance of passing an AfD, although the current referencing is extremely poor. He's directed for a couple of reasonably notable, if not top-tier, opera companies,
Opera Holland Park and the
Scottish Opera touring company. Note that
opera-britannia.com is an amateur website and
this one is the official website of Opera Holland Park with cherry-picked review quotes, not the original reviews. They're not in the article at the moment, but reviews from multiple British newspapers for his productions are available. This strikes me as part of a concerted effort by 3 new SPA editors to promote a relatively new Bulgarian opera festival which "supports young opera singers", i.e. non-notable ones ;) by creating one for the company, and filling in the red links in the draft. See also
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Operosa and the recently created
Darina Takova, a notable singer but a poor article, referenced solely to a blog review and... er... the Operosa website. Anyhow, tell the creator of the Martin Lloyd-Evans draft to get to work on producing a properly referenced draft with multiple reviews in mainline newspapers. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've cleaned this up (a lot!) and moved to article space myself. Passes MUSICBIO on the recordings. Clearly an autobio, however. I removed and/or copyedited a bunch of stuff. Best
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
This one's a bit tricky. The only way she would pass with the current referencing is
WP:MUSICBIO #9 (Has won or placed in a major music competition). Some of her prizes are properly referenced, but I have no idea if those are major international competitions. Suggest you get a view from WikiProject Classical Music. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've just removed 3/4 of the draft. It was verbatim and/or closely paraphrased from
http://www.lucyparham.com/biography.htm (as if the horrific puffery weren't a clue in itself). I've left an extended comment on the draft. In the meantime, I recommend declining this. The referencing is completely inadequate for a BLP and for the claims made. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Well, he probably does scrape notability. But it needs a lot of work on copyediting and referencing. I'll get to it in the next couple of days, and then move it to article space.
Hi
FoCuS, me again. Hmmm. This is a toughie. I think it could eventually pass, but not now. The existing references are inadequate. I have found some reviews of one of the books, and may be able to some for the other ones. If I do, I'll add them and move it to article space. Maybe decline for now? But leave a note to the effect that I'll see what I can do with it over the next week or so. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. The script simply will not work for me. That's why I manually move drafts that I accept. I can't decline them or mark them under review. Frankly, I don't care. The script is awfully inflexible and impersonal. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Me again,
FoCuS. I see another reviewer quite rightly has declined it. Proper referencing would easily establish notability, but the creator needs to do some work here, and he's not important enough for me to do it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah, he passes, despite the referencing being a mess here. I'd say go ahead and move it but remove all the references to Wikipedia articles first, and tag for clean up, especially the ref formatting. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
This passes too. Had a big review in Billboard (I've added it) + it's a work by two notable people. Note the wikilinks in the article probably go DaB pages so it needs to be tagged for that. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Already moved to article space by another editor. Frankly, this was very marginal and I wouldn't have approved it. Virtually all the references are simple concert announcements, press-release based, or written by the subject himself. He is not all notable as an opera singer and his roles are inflated, not sung in major opera houses in full-scale professional productions. Oh well.
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Nah,
FoCuS. Not worth the effort I'd have to put in to analyze all 47 references. He could well scrape a pass at AfD anyway (although not as an opera singer) simply because he and his agent have been very busy getting him interviews.
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Interesting case,
FoCuS. A notable encyclopedic subject (with articles on both the German and Dutch Wikipedias) seemingly created by someone with the goal of publicising his own (non-notable) business which makes reproductions of Kaps pianos (see
[12]). I've extensively edited this to remove the plugs for the creator's business, added some proper references, and copyedited for coherence, grammar, etc. Go ahead and accept, but tag with {{refimprove}}{{orphan}}, {{copyedit}}. It needs proper cats as well. When accepting, I suggest moving it to
Ernst Kaps Piano Fabrik with an additional redirect from
Ernst Kaps Pianos. When you've accepted it, I'll add some commentary on the talk page re the stuff I removed and why. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. You're right! Decline. None of the references indicate he passes
WP:ANYBIO and he most certainly does not pass the alternative criteria at
WP:MUSICBIO. He's at the very beginning of his career. He might become notable some day, but is not now. I'd advise the article's creator stop the attempt to create an article about him at this point. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline. Referencing is totally inadequate. He probably would pass the notability criteria if properly referenced to independent reliable sources. I've left extensive comments for the creator on the draft itself. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I see this is already declined by another editor and rightly so! No independent sources. Why? Because they basically hire themselves out to entertain at private events. The first version had been deleted as blatant copyvio from
this. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Better than a 50% chance of surviving an AfD, despite the appallingly formatted and documented references. I'd say accept it, but remove the references to YouTube and Wikipedia and tag for clean up, especially {{citation style}}. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline. References are very weak - they simply verify the performances but I suspect she would pass an AfD on those. I also added a big-ish article on her in the Washington Blade and a ref for the
Outer Critics Circle Award nomination. However, the material on her personal life and many of the quotes, do not meet the referencing standards for a BLP. The creator needs to put the work in.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline. Completely lacking inline citations and all refs are to his official biographies, nothing independent of him. I have no idea what's available out there, but frankly, he isn't sufficiently notable that I'd put the time in trying to to find it. The draft's creator needs to to that. Tell 'em that independent sources in Arabic are OK, if it's too difficult to find significant coverage in English. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. It was but I archived it, as I thought you had seen it my May 16th answer, which still applies:
This one's a bit tricky. The only way she would pass with the current referencing is
WP:MUSICBIO #9 (Has won or placed in a major music competition). Some of her prizes are properly referenced, but I have no idea if those are major international competitions. Suggest you get a view from WikiProject Classical Music..
This was their answer, which gives some useful links, although it doesn't address the issue of whether any of the awards/prizes are major ones. I'll ask 'em. The current sources are largely concert announcements and some reviews, all of her debut CD. (She'd need 2 recordings on a notable label to pass
WP:MUSICBIO #5. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've vastly truncated, copyedited, and referenced this. It was a complete dog's dinner created by an editor (editors?) with an obvious COI. I think she'd now scrape a pass at AfD. Go ahead and accept it. Note that you'll need a history merge as this was cut and pasted from the multiply declined
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dulce Beatriz (last declined 29 May 2013). Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I see this was declined 2 days ago by another reviewer but it passes
WP:MUSICBIO on the three recordings. I've added 4 more independent sources. You should move it into article space and tag for further clean up. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah,
FoCuS, she's notable. I added an extra ref just to make sure. Go ahead and move it and tag with {{tone}} or {{copyedit}}. It's way too promotional and full of infelicities like "Maestra De León de Vega", "acclaimed", etc. It stands a much better chance of getting fixed once it's in article space. I did a quick check for copyvio, given the tone, but it seems OK. Looks like it was "custom written", if you know what I mean.
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. Decline, a non-notable former session musician turned non-notable drug counselor—not because of the references' format (easily fixable), but because of their quality. Not a single one of them covers the subject in any depth. Several don't mention him at all and the remainder are simple track credits and not very impressive ones either. Also, this is a BLP. Where did all that unpublished biographical information come from? Rhetorical question. We can't publish that. Especially problematic is the picture of his ex-wife and mention of their divorce which is entirely undocumented.
Voceditenore (
talk)
06:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've fixed it up and cleaned it up a bit and added several more refs. Definitely notable, shouldn't really have been declined, but I can see the reviewer's point given the state it was in. Go ahead and move to article space where it can be further improved.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. After the recent decline, I had a look and added a couple of references (reviews of 2 of the albums they produced) but I still don't think it's enough. There may be more out there (probably requiring library work), but the creators are going to have to find it. It's not a sufficiently important label for me to spend time on it. It is mentioned in multiple WP articles
[13], but it's hard to tell if that was just advance legwork from other COI editors. None of the mentions are referenced. Note that the creator of this draft has the same name as Cameo's distributor (Wyastone Estate) and has been very busy getting the Wyastone name into multiple articles
[14], although sometimes reverted
[15].
Voceditenore (
talk)
06:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I've vastly truncated this and rewritten with references. It was a blatant copyvio from
here, hence the wildly unsuitable tone. My view is that with the new references, this probably does pass
WP:MUSICBIO criteria 5 and 8. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. UGH! Needs to be cut to 4 sentences—literally. He is mentioned in a few sources in India but only concert announcements basically and in one review of a performance by an artist whom he accompanied. He's also appeared as the accompanist on several recordings, but I'm not sure how notable they are, and frankly don't care enough to find out. Maybe ask at WikiProject India? This is quite different from
Draft:Subhen Chatterjee, which I think you should move to article space. See my comments above. I'll try to get to the rest of the folks above sometime next week. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I haven't forgotten about you. I've just been horribly busy. I'm leaving for Italy, away for a month. I'll take at look at these when I get back. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Dear Voceditenore: I found an old draft about this organization, and looked up some references before realizing that it was a copy-paste remnant. I deleted the draft, but are any of these useful in improving the mainspace article? —
Anne Delong (
talk)
15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
Anne. I'm in Italy for the next month with poor internet access, so can't work on it 'til I get back, but it's worth keeping and getting into shape. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS!
Edwin R. Fissinger is basically OK. I fixed all the references to him as "Dr. Fissinger". The other issues are relatively minor, not worth a festoonment of banners.
As for
Draft:Ingrid James, she may be borderline notable in Australian jazz circles. I have no idea—it's not my area. But it's up to the creator of that fluff to reference it properly with independent sources. As of now there are zero. I wouldn't waste any time on it, frankly.
And apropos
Draft:Ambre McLean. You're right about the chart listing. That needs a rock solid source for the chart position. It's the only potentially viable claim to notability. Not to mention the "award-winning" description. A local contest for "emerging artists" hardly justifies that claim. I assume you've also noticed the... er.. parallels between the draft's creator and the name of her latest record company. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
14:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for all that. Yeah, Ambre's creator just posted a message on my talk page claiming she charted on some fringe publication. I think I'll decline it. Did you like my
Honey and Rue?
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm more than happy to oblige. Let me know if I can help you with any more "gaps". I quite enjoy doing the research for music-related projects. Cheers,
FoCuSandLeArN (
talk)
19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS. I need to look more closely at McWilliams. However, Lynn Freeman Olson is definitely notable. I've formatted the sources with links and added authority control. I'd say to sprinkle the sources around the article as inline refs and accept it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS!
Element Quartet is mildly notable. The problem with musicians and ensembles that were prominent in the UK in the 1950s is that there is a dearth of material online. Referencing can be done, but it's a lot of work. I'll see what I can do with referencing that one. As to Ernest Element himself, he seems reasonably notable. He's got an entry in British Music (published in 1948 and only available in snippet form on Google
[16]): "ELEMENT, ERNEST. Violinist, b. Wolverhampton, Staffs, January 5th, 1909. Studied under Hytch, thereafter placing himself with Paul Beard, Henry Holst and Carl Flesch for successive periods...". But
Draft:Ernest Element & Element Quartet needs to be drastically cut. The amount of quoted copyright material is completely unacceptable. The book about Robert Simpson used as a reference for the quartet premiering his works is probably accurate, but it's self published (
Xlibris). More about the ballet chap in a mo'.
Voceditenore (
talk)
06:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Me again, Hi
FoCuS. Hmmmm. Martin Lodge is marginally notable, albeit in the very small pond of New Zealand composers. Gets a mention in
The Oxford history of New Zealand music. There is other commentary on his music in places, e.g.
"Pacific Rock, for solo viola by Martin Lodge, with its busy, brawny perpetual mobile gestures interlarded with sliding figures, clearly demonstrates the influence of Watson's composition [...] (
21st Century Music, Volume 9).
The draft is dreadful though, written like a résumé/press release. And, unreferenced BLP-violating trivia must go, e.g.
"Lodge lives on a lifestyle block outside of Hamilton with his wife, noted writer Gail Pittway. They have two children, Alexandra and Max" .
The creator clearly knows the subject personally (possibly one of his students?) and it shows in the text. I'd reject it until they provide proper and extensive referencing, not just one review of one album, and remove all peacockery and all claims and assertions (especially evaluative ones) which cannot be reliably sourced. It's not a subject I'm interested in working on. Unless you are, put the ball back in the creator's court. PS This is a very frank and probably undiplomatic assessment. Don't link to it directly when communicating with the editor. PPS What the heck is a " lifestyle block"???
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I see another reviewer moved it to article space yesterday, and probably rightly so from looking at the refs. I've been aware of that draft for over a year but had been studiously ignoring it because of the obvious COI shenanigans which
came to head two months ago. I give such drafts my very lowest priority unless another AfC explicitly asks my advice. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
07:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Wow,
FoCuS! This one's a pain to search for, given the football player of the same name and from the same town and the fact that he's not awfully well known outside Romania. However,
this article in the Ziarul Financiar seems to confirm the George Enescu Prize for his composition (If for oboe and electronic media). He got another, lesser prize for the same work, see
here. Apart from that I couldn't find much biographical info, although there seem to be mentions of him in various concerts in Romania (all in Romanian and I haven't looked at the contents closely). There is a mention of him in
this book (Art music in the Balkans). Might be enough, especially the Enescu Prize. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk) 15:53, 29 May 2015
Hi
Smorfe. I was referring above to biographical information that is completely independent of the subject. The bio on
Contemporary Romanian Musicians site is not independent. It can be used to reference biographical information in the draft but is not useful for establishing notability (the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). However, as I told
FoCuSandLeArN, I think the subject's notability is probably established by having won the Enescu Prize. The German Wikipedia article is referenced solely to the subject's official website, and in any case Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. I notice that your user name is the same as the subject's website (smorfe.com). If you have any affiliation to Adrian Borza, personal or professional, you need to read
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance when editing under those circumstances. Best wishes,
Voceditenore (
talk)
16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Sorry about the late reply. I see that another reviewer moved
Draft:Charles-Victor Dubois to article space and rightly so, in my view. Draft:Herbert Sucoff is tricky. The notability here is pretty marginal. The obit is a case where I think the NYT is acting in its capacity as the "local newspaper" for the NYC area. No other obituaries appear elsewhere in the US. I checked WorldCat and his published music is held in a miniscule number of libraries. I think the only way this would be sure to pass an AfD, is if the article could establish that the ensemble he founded was notable, i.e. Sea Cliff Chamber Players, with reasonable coverage and preferably documentation of them premiering notable(ish) works by other composers, not just his own. The evidence for the claim "His compositions have been performed in prominent concert halls, largely in the New York area but also outside the United States", is not independently verifiable from the reference given (print copy of what appear to be liner notes but not online.) If they are liner notes, the claims are not independent of the subject. Hope that helps. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Me again,
FoCuS. I've also placed a version of these comments re Sucoff on the draft itself as guidance—primarily for the creator, but also for reviewers. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
You're welcome,
FoCuS. Frankly, if I were you I'd review it and fail it. It would at least cut the queue by one and I honestly don't think it passes in the current state. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! Yes, he (
Draft:Manfred Hemm) is definitely notable. Lots of performances in leading roles in leading opera houses, and the reviews to prove it. He also created the title role in
Gottfried von Einem's opera Der Tulifant. Plus a discography that would let him pass on
WP:MUSICBIO alone. Not that it adds to his notability, but he used to be married to
this lady. Dreadful draft though. Needs cleanup and much better referencing. Shall I put out a call for help at WikiProject Opera? I might be able to get to it myself in a few days if no one else does. Still thinking about the maltesers.
Voceditenore (
talk)
15:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)reply
OK,
FoCuS, now for the Maltese and the Belgian.
Draft:Peter Paul Ciantar is dreadful. I hate "hails from" and the listing of his hobbies, but he may well be notable in... er... Malta. It all depends on that first reference which rather fudges the issue. If he actually has an entry in Dictionary of Maltese Biographies, he might scrape a pass. I haven't got a clue.
The Belgian (
Draft:Harmen Vanhoorne) may be kind of well-known among ...er... cornettists. But there really isn't much about him at all, apart from having won these brass band contests and only one recording on a Belgian label which I've never heard of. But it's probably worth keeping this around for a while in case something else shows up.
Hmmm. I see this was accepted at AfC. Probably the right decision, but it needs a lot of copyediting. The creator seems to be an admirer rather than a COI editor, but the article comes across as very promotional even if that wasn't the intention.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! The
Agim Hushi article is dreadful, but I suspect he's notable and it could be "proved" if one looked hard enough for citations. I'd leave it for now. When I get back from Italy in September, I'll see about de-pufferizing and referencing it. I suspect by the time I'm finished... the article will be a stub that's shorter than its reference section.
Draft:Elin Soderstrommiiight eventually scrape a notability pass. But it would be a ton of work finding adequate references and the current state of the draft is somewhat akin to a pig pen. This is one of those cases where, unless you are personally interested in putting in a lot of work for very little encyclopedic value, it's better to leave the ball in the draft creator's court. I note that she almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Observe the "role reversal" with the creator of
Mary Soderstrom (another very problematic article).
I see that
On Site Opera was accepted and probably rightly so. As for
the interesting discussion, I tend to avoid those like the plague. They make my brain hurt . I'm off to Italy next week—a part of deepest, darkest Tuscany with not fab internet connection—and staying a month. Yay! Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This one is clearly notable. It should not have been rejected, but cleaned up slightly to remove puffery and fix the English. There were already enough refs to establish notability. I've added yet another + authority control. If I were you I'd move it to article space.
Voceditenore (
talk)
12:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'd say he passes but it needs better refs. There are a lot in the Russian press
[19] + there is a lot of stuff in his article on Russian Wikipedia
[20] which interestingly hasn't been updated to include the Tchaikovsky Competition
I've added four refs to substantial coverage. She's also been broadcast on
Ö1 (very notable Austrian radio station)
[21]. A niche artist/genre but a notable one. I'd pass it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't think I'd pass this one. He's basically a high school music teacher, and latterly a teacher in the Conservatory of Ho Chi Minh City. Not really enough to pass
WP:MUSICBIO. There may be coverage of him in the Vietnamese-language press, but I kind of doubt it. Note also there's some very inappropriate BLP speculation, which suggests that hard facts about his life and career are not available.
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I haven't forgotten you :). I'll start plowing through the list tomorrow. I'll add my comments beneath each one in the list but won't ping each time unless you want me to. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! I haven't forgotten you. I've just been really busy both on- and off- Wiki. I'll try to get to some of these next week. In the meantime, you might want to drop a note at
WikiProject Classical music re the Milhaud articles. Someone there may be willing to give them a polish. Best,
Voceditenore (
talk)
08:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi
FoCuS! It was sent to AfD and kept back in 2005. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Holvik. The article is lousy and the notability is very marginal. I might have a go at cleaning it up and seeing what sort of independent referencing I can find. Might be worth holding off on this one. She may have some significant recordings.
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply