-
Giorgi Latsabidze (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
This was nominated for speedy as promotional by
Ohconfucius and after that the article's creator argued strongly for it to be restored. So I userfied it to
User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze and after some heavy cutting I tend to agree with Ohconfucius that it is still thoroughly beyond repair. Placing this here for a consensus whether it should stay deleted, or restored.
Kimchi.sg (
talk) 05:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Stay deleted - Not seeing any
reliable sources in this article. That is especially problematic for a BLP. Everything in the "Notes and Additional References" section are really just notes, and not references (with the exception of a bare IMDB link, which is not a reliable source). Also, the tone of the article is still promotional, but I wouldn't say it's a candidate for speedy deletion in its current state. Add reliable sources and then delete everything that can't be sourced, and then you'll have an article.
SnottyWong
spill the beans 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- continue rewriting, and restore This is not a hopelessly promotional article; the version deleted was
[1], sand it is undoubtedly promotional in style because of the long quotes. Calling it a G11 was, in my opinion, stretching the boundaries of G11 too far, but sometimes that's the only way to get something like this reduced to reason. Ironically, the 3rd party sources SnottyWong asks form & which is missing in the present article, was in the parts that were removed: the reviews. (they did need to be reworded to link to the actually published reviews, not the excerpts on the performer's web site.) In my opinion, just a botched job of rewriting that needs to be done over.
DGG (
talk ) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Continue editing and restore This article discussion has already been going on in several places (primarily on Kimchi.sg's talk page) and is out of synchronization with the continued editing that has been taking place. Please refer to the most current edited userfied version at
User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze as well as to the earlier versions shown there. I am the original editor of this article and agree that many of the elements subsequently added by others were over the top and unnecessary. I have removed many elements in the recent editing, including the criticized quotes (leaving only references), the section on "Early childhood" and many of the added pictures and media links. Editor Kimchi.sg also deleted the sections on "Positions" and "Repertoire" that were added by others and can perhaps be considered excessive as well. However, he also for some reason deleted the pre-existing references that SnottyWong for example finds currently lacking, as well as essentially all of the other web references in the article outside of Wikipedia itself, and I don't understand the logic of those deletions. Many of the claims in the article are now without substantiation due to these unfortunate edits by Kimchi.sg. I suggest that the deleted references be restored, unless some valid reason for this exists. I am open to all suggestions for additional changes to make the article more encyclopedic and acceptable for restoration.
Music43lover (
talk) 01:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Some additional notes regarding the references may be helpful here. The awards listed in the article gave as substantiation links to PDF copies of the award certificate images, such as the one at
[2], which were deleted recently by Kimchi.sg. Although these PDF's are located on the subject's website, there is little reason to question their authenticity. In contrast, most such articles on Wikipedia that cite awards do not provide any substantiation at all. In the case of the quote extracts, I can be even more precise. I have the original newspaper copies in my possession, written in Russian or German. Since I could not vouch for the English translations available on the subject's website at the time, I scanned in the articles, did ACR on the scans and used multiple automatic translators together with some personal knowledge of German to produce my own translations. Since my translations are not "official", I referenced both my translations and the original text in the article with links such as
[3] and
[4]. Again these links direct to the subject's website, where I requested they be placed for this specific purpose. Unfortunately, the links were redirected by the website manager to a long page of miscellaneous quote excerpt translations, and those other than the ones that I specifically referenced have provenances unknown to me. I recently deleted the shorter extracts of the cited quotes from the article in response to criticism, although they appeared reasonably short to me, but I left the references to the full quotes. These were deleted by Kimchi.sg along with all other external references. Now the only references left are those to the original newspaper sources, which are relatively inaccessible. I suggest the following solution: I can place the short quote extracts (essentially one line) on Wikiquotes and reference these and the PDF copies of the longer quote extracts in the PDFs such as shown above. It appears to me that the article is being unfairly singled out for lack of suitable references due to changes that were out of my control, but can be readily fixed.
Music43lover (
talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Stay deleted: Perhaps one of the problems is that the article is so well-written; the images included are unusual, and I had suspected the whole campaign to list this article is so many of our sister projects could only have been done as a concerted effort by the subject's publicists. I still maintain that even in the current guise, the article is beyond redemption. The only bits in the article which are anywhere near
properly sourced are the reviews; OK, the 'Musical education' section may seem relatively uncontroversial, but it remains totally unsourced. If you remove all the unsourced, and lose the quotefarm – which I agree are a significant part of the problem, we really have precious little content left. --
Ohconfucius
¡digame! 23:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- A response – Oh! Confucius. Thanks for the complement regarding my writing capability. A caution, however, about suggesting that I am part of a group of the “subject's publicists”, since speculation about the identity of an editor is strongly condemned by Wikipedia policies. It is more likely that any writing ability that I possess is a result of considerable university education, including a Ph.D., but all in scientific/technical areas rather than in music. I also have no professional connection with the music industry or musicians. I do, perhaps obviously, have a strong interest in classical music, and have played the piano and taken lessons on and off since the age of 6. Now semi-retired from engineering, I am a volunteer board member in an important local non-profit chamber music organization and in this capacity have the lead responsibility in selecting the performers and programs for each of our seasons. As part of this activity, I attend a great number of local chamber music and recital concerts and auditions, and hear many piano performances by both young and established artists. In the past few years, I came to hear several performances by Latsabidze, was enormously impressed by his artistic abilities, and learned from USC Thornton acquaintances something about his background and achievements. In looking at his already substantial website at the time, it occurred to me that he might be an excellent subject for a Wikipedia article on a notable young performer. That is how I came to write the article, rather than out of any pecuniary motive.
- As far as the article sourcing is concerned, I take all the blame for the obvious confusion regarding this issue. I was confounding sourcing, which in this case apparently means where the information came from, with verification, which is how the information can be verified or elaborated. My starting point for the article was Latsabidze’s extensive website as it existed at that time, about a year ago. However, I am as skeptical as anybody about a subject’s own website and understood the need for verifiability. I expressed my interest and concern to Latsabidze, and he agreed to help direct me to appropriate sources of verification wherever necessary and possible. My approach in writing the Wikipedia article was to strictly use information in support of notability that could be independently verified, and in most cases, performed such verification directly myself as well as providing the corresponding references to the verification sources. For example, in the case of his awards, I had him provide the PDF copies of the original award certificates, which were referenced in the article before their recent deletion by Kimchi.sg. Similarly, he was able to provide me with original published paper copies of the newspapers that contained the cited review quotations, and the original published newspaper and flier announcements of the notable concert performances that are cited in the article. Any elements of this sort that I could not directly verify were excluded from the article. In many cases, in particular the review quotations and the details (e.g., dates, repertoire) of the notable performances, there are some differences between the contents of the subject’s website at the time and what appears in the articles, since I was able to refer directly to the source materials. (Note that there have been changes in the website since then that were based on the Wikipedia article.) In short, the sources of the article are a combination of personal information that appeared on the subject’s website, corrections and amplifications that were obtained during the process of verification, and totally independent sources such as the review newspapers and performance announcements. If the article is not deleted, I will improve the sourcing provided in the article’s references, now that I better understand the problem. And please excuse the length of this insert, but I thought the information might be helpful in this resolution process.
Music43lover (
talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep deleted, but continue improving sourcing to establish notability I have reviewed the userspace draft and have found little evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources in the current version; however, per
DGG (
talk ·
contribs), a
previous revision, though promotional, had much evidence of notability in the form of secondary reviews. The article still contains some non-neutral content (his already evident enthusiasm for the piano was rewarded) and will need work in that regard.
An older version had the following content: This performance received a highly favourable review by the Georgian music critic [to be inserted], who said in part: One of the world-class virtuosi of the 21st century honoured us with an outstanding performance of the Rachmaninoff Third Piano Concerto....Latsabidze projected completely the profound melancholy of this work with a rock solid technique and a singing tone that seemed to hover over the hall. His fresh interpretation was absolutely convincing, providing an example of the best in today's piano playing. During this period, he was also favourably recognised by the Georgian music critic Gulbat Toradze for his performance of the
24 Études of Chopin in his home town of Tbilisi, who said in part: "...he managed this task completely, while demonstrating high artistic craftsmanship, ...at its heart a noble and delicate artistic taste in the interpretation of this inspired music, not giving way to excessive pace or pathos, ...with the main artistic goal of recognizing the internal wealth and “aristocratic spirit” of the music..."
I recommend that
Music43lover (
talk ·
contribs) continue working on the article and prune the content sourced only to primary sources. For instance, although the PDF copies of the original award certificates establish verifiability, they are not secondary sources and thus do not demonstrate that the awards have had enough of an impact on Latsabidze's life to be worthy of mention in the article. If secondary sources mentioned/discussed his receiving of the awards, then the awards can remain in the article. I believe that this article has the potential to be undeleted and restored to the mainspace. It is not ready for restoration at the moment due to the sourcing. I ask that
Music43lover (
talk ·
contribs), when citing newspaper sources, consider using a template such as
Template:Cite news or
Template:Cite web. These templates contain relevant citation information such as an article's title, author, date of publication, publisher, and URL (if the article is available online). This will help readers and editors more easily locate a source and determine if it is reliable. I agree with
Snottywong (
talk ·
contribs) that the references section is more like a collection of footnotes. Instead of placing comments in the references section, perhaps a footnotes section (see
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes) could be created. When sourcing and tone improvements are made, the article may be recreated. If you, Music43lover, want someone to review the article before moving it to the mainspace or initiating a discussion at DRV, feel free to contact me on
my talk page.
Cunard (
talk) 08:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
|