The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep per
WP:TVSHOW. The subject is about a nationally broadcast concert on a major network,
PBS's Great Performances. Five seconds of searching took me to
this review in The New York Times. The nominator has not done any research, but has summarily nominated multiple articles out of a personal vendetta against the article's creator and is not acting in good faith in my opinion..
4meter4 (
talk)
21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)reply
My understanding of notability guidelines is along the lines of
this comment from Dodger67 in a recent discussion: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. A topic that fails a Wikiproject's subject-specific notability guidelines but passes
WP:GNG should not be deleted.
Colin M (
talk)
00:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Whether or not it passes WikiProject Classical music's notability guidelines, it would appear to pass
WP:GNG (per the non-trivial NYTimes coverage found by 4meter4 above, plus the Gramophone coverage cited in the article), and that's enough.
Colin M (
talk)
00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete subject specific guidelines often exist because coverage of some subjects is so exhaustive but in fleeting ways that we would create more articles than would ever be needed or sustainable just on GNG. This is clearly what we face with politician articles, where GNG would justify almost every unelected candidate getting an article, but we don't want that. Mainly because it would make Wikipedia more presentist and Amero-centric, two things it already is way too much.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Does the coverage mentioned above not satisfy
WP:NALBUM#1? Unlike the WikiProject essay cited by nominator,
WP:NALBUM does not exclude reviews as a form of RS coverage. As for the copyvio issue,
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the majority of the article was plagiarized, then yeah, maybe it would be better to blow it up. But that doesn't seem to be the case here - as far as I can tell, it's just a problem of injudiciously long quotations in the "Critical reception" section. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Colin M (
talk)
14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. This isn't really only an album. It's a live PBS television broadcast that was recorded and then secondarily released on DVD and CD. The relevant policy is
WP:TVSHOW which only requires that it aired on a major network. PBS is a major network.
4meter4 (
talk)
19:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Additional sources. Opera News included the work in it's 2016 review of the work's re-release as a part of a collection of Frederica von Stadt's material. This shows longevity which further lends to notability. See
[1]. The work has also been broadcast on
WQXR and it charted at number 10 on the top classical music sales (
see here) in the December 1996 publication of Billboard.
4meter4 (
talk)
14:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per reviews in Gramophone, NYT and Opera News. The article meets GNG. So the Classical Music page cited (not even an SNG, but an essay) is not compelling evidence. As for the "fails NALBUM" argument, saying that an article fails some SNGs tells us nothing—rather, it needs to fail all SNGs and GNG to be non-notable—and I hope I'm misunderstanding the nominator when they dismiss "the existence of reviews" as if secondary sources are irrelevant. (The !vote is "weak" as I can't actually view two of the sources, but I'm taking it on good faith that the reviews are substantial. Summoned here from a neutral WPTV notice.) — Bilorv (talk)
15:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per 4meter4's research findings and reasoning. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief excerpts from Steane's review will replace what has been deleted in due course.
Niggle1892 (
talk)
12:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.