Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Boepple

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as vanity supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Boepple

not notable, possible vanity We99 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• He has apparently played with several prominent orchestras, recorded for a couple of labels and received a number of awards.[1][2] I would welcome the nominator to make his case for the non-notability of Boepple, but for now I see no reason not to keep this article. Tupsharru 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete - too many words, too little substance from the Hans Boepple Fan Club. Tupsharru 07:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If Boepple has recorded for a number of labels, where can I buy his CDs online? Where did Hans Boepple receive his PhD and where is the list of published papers? If Boepple has made important contributions to the field, there should be a list of published papers, if his contributions were original and worth putting into writing. The logic to save this page is ludicrous: "He lives in a unique city and he plays a unique set of songs." This is a vanity page and does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia. If Boepple is a noted classical performer, where is his concert or touring schedule? An occassional concert doesn't qualify as a concert pianist. Hundreds of piano competitions are held every year with hundreds of winners. Boepple is not notable. The fact that SCUMATT would call him a renowned classical pianist and hyperlink pianist to the Wikipedia pianist page does a disservice and is self-promotion. More troubling is the title of "Master Pianist" on Wikipedia. Assuming no one steps up to the plate to point to his CDs, his playing doesn't rise to the level of playing as other pianists that are on Wikipedia pianist page. The fact that there are links to his faculty web page indicate this is vanity. We99 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • • Note: I have reinstated We99's original post above, according to Tupsharru's request below. We99, I hope you don't mind, but this was necessay; please see your Talk page for explanation and information. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The recordings he has made, or rather the ones I can easily find, are for an educational music publisher, Neil A. Kjos Music Company [3], see [4] and [5]. The newly registered users arguing for the retention of the article should presumably be in a position to provide details of Boepple's other recordings hinted at in his online bios, but that they seem uninterested in doing so is making me lean towards changing my vote to a delete (I'll wait a couple of days before doing so, though). The PhD issue is however completely irrelevant for a music professor - I don't think Nadia Boulanger had a doctorate - so please don't waste time on that either way unless the argument is that he has made some scholarly contributions to musicology. Tupsharru 06:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • First of all, the point of the comparison was not to compare the importance of one with the other, but to point out that a professor of music, i.e. somebody who teaches music on a practical level at a conservatory or musical academy or similar institution (which is apparently what Boepple does), does not normally need to have a Ph.D., as opposed to somebody who teaches, say, music history. In this case, the music school just happens to be part of a university, which is what may confuse you. Secondly, stop revising your original comments! To substantially change a comment to which somebody else has already replied confuses the issue and makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to reply to a comment made by somebody else, don't change your original comment, but put your new comment, indented, below the comment you want to reply to, and sign it with a datestamp. Please go back now and restore your comment to what it originally looked like when I replied to it, and add your newer comments further down in the discussion. Tupsharru 18:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • For reasons already stated above, whether this Boepple has a doctorate is not the issue. It is completely irrelevant. Neither is the issue whether he is the equal of Arthur Rubinstein as a pianist or of Nadia Boulanger as an instructor. The issue is just whether he is notable enough for to fulfill the requirements of WP:MUSIC, which lets in a lot of obscure death metal bands only notable in their own subculture. So far I haven't seen any sensible discussion of that either from you or from the other recently created users commenting below. And BTW, I have already stated that I will change my vote to delete unless Boepple's defenders present more evidence of his recordings. You don't need to convince me on that point, but stop obsessing over the issue of his doctorate. Tupsharru 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
          • • I have repaired the links to the interviews, which I thought would be beneficial additions to provide personal insight concerning Boepple that print encyclopedias don't have the opportunity to demonstrate. As far as recordings, the two that seem to be listed most often are the Kjos Music recordings shown above and the complete Bagatelles by Beethoven for the Orion Master Recordings series. See [6]. I haven't been able to track down any pre-web era recordings that he may have made. It is true that Boepple has settled into teaching and has not currently toured as a performer within the last decade or so. To me, his past performances and competitions, recordings, and demand as a teacher should be enough to warrant an article. Particularly, the inclusion on the Steinway list suggests that he is a highly respected classical musician. Once again, no one is trying to compare him with the great pianists of the past. Also: do see my new comments below. As they suggest, I am not at all opposed to changing the wording of the article such that it does not include terms like "renowned" or "master pianist" if a consensus is reached that these words, by definition, should only be used for household names. To me, they are usual enough in the classical music lexicon to be used with any well respected performer.SCUMATT 4:35, 5 November 2005 (PST) (I'm not sure if there is a way to edit the page so that this comes up automatically. Again, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia)
          • SCUMATT, please provide a link where we can buy his complete bagatelle recordings. If you have reviews, that would be great, too. It seems fishy that you are only referencing a page that talks about it. We99 06:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I know in my heart that this article is worth keeping on the basis that Hans Boepple has won one international piano competition in the last millenium when back when piano competitions were geniunely competitive because the idea had not caught on as much as it has today. These days I counted 100 competitions at http://www.piano-net.com/links.htm so people take it for granted. Just because any international piano competition may seem meaningless today, it meant a lot than he won one a long time ago when there were fewer piano competitions and you could keep track of the names more easily. I am mostly impressed that all these notable symphony venues openly rented their facilities to him because every musician needs to play at important places and ask others for help promoting the concert with articles. We need to keep this article solely on the basis of the Steinway International list and the unique list of cities that he has played in. Getting real experience as a musician is far better than squandering time and cash on a Ph.D. in music or one of those DMA degrees. It would be completely unfair to compare him to to Jonathan Berger because he is a chairman of a rival university that grants its own doctorates in music and attended a univesrity that granted those degrees a long time ago. We only need to be listening to opinions that are neutral not from rival music scholars or rival musicians. We should definitely not compare him with chairwoman Ingrid Monsoon because she is an African jazz and she receives sponsorship monies from her sock puppet committee that was more interested in African jazz diversity instead sticking to the piano classics. Only undiplomatic doctorate divas who know nothing about how a university degree factory works would dare ask about his Ph.D. No music chair would ever ask about that of another because the chairman of the department can always print a diploma using university's special paper on it and ask his professional peers to sign it as a professional courtesy. There is nothing vain about being the chair of department and setting policy. Policy is not vain. It is one of the responsibilities and privileges of a department chairman to sign diplomas and make policy. I think music chairs also participate in admissions decisions too. I see every reason to keep this article. He is of a unique age and lives in a unique city and plays a unique set of songs. Those are the reasons to keep this article. Campbrat 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• As I entered the article into Wikipedia, I won't offer a vote in the matter; I will, however, offer some insights. First, in response to We99, noted classical performers don't always get PhD's and usually do not publish papers. Their artistic achievements generally speak for themselves. Secondly, I think that Boepple is sufficiently notable in classical circles, in which he is a widely recognized teacher and adjudicator as well as performer. Classical artists, unless we're talking about the very top handful, tend to receive media attention in specialized outlets that are not as widely read by people whose interests are not in classical music. Boepple is not the Michael Jordan of pianists; however, he has made important contributions to his field and is quite well regarded throughout the US. To extend the basketball metaphor, we welcome articles about proven stars in the NBA even if they are not Jordan or Bryant. Should we not extend the same welcome to pianists? SCUMATT 05:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• My apologies User_talk:NSLE, I mustn't have been signed in under my username when I edited my suggestion. Secondly, there were complaints about the wording... "master pianist" I believe. If the article is not deleted, please feel free to change the words. Often pianists are described in such a way when they have had as much education and performance experience as Mr. Boepple, even if they don't compare to whichever piano "greats" that you choose to cite. Thirdly, I am not interested in creating a vanity article concerning Mr. Boepple. As a student at SCU and someone realatively new to Wikipedia, I have simply tried to provide the information with which I am exposed at the present and that I think is helpful and acceptable by Wikipedia; I believe that I have been fair in this regard. Obviously, there is some disagreement and ambiguity in terms of the place of biography especially among musicians. Fourthly, there was some insinuation that Mr. Boepple was in some way interested in comparing himself with the said "paino greats" which is untrue. He has no knowledge of or association with this article, nor am I one of his students or a major or minor in his department. I am simply someone who has been told of his excellence, heard him play, and know that students from across the US come to Santa Clara to study with him and have turned down major scholarships to USC, Oberlin, and other noted conservatories to do so. My research about him suggested that he was enough of a noted classical pianist to warant a small article on Wikipedia. Obviously others disagree. I appreciate and understand criticism of articles I write and certainly understand if an article I write is deleted through this process; however, please do not jump to conclusions as to my reasoning for authoring this or any other article. SCUMATT 4:35, 5 November 2005 (PST) (I'm not sure if there is a way to edit the page so that this comes up automatically. Again, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia).

• Comment - Take a look at the page history; all the red links on the page history. Their user contribs are all less than 50, and most have been to this page. Someone below signed as User:SCUMATT, who has NOT edited this page. This smacks of major sockpuppetry to me. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 08:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  
  • I moved this comment down here. Please don't insert your comments before the nomination. Tupsharru 08:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete has four external links three of which are dead and one which is just an interview. Many red links...Dakota ^{t e} 22:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have repaired the links. Most are interviews; although I'm sure other information can supplant these articles. SCUMATT

• A living healthy person like Boepple that hasn't toured in the last decade means he isn't a notable performer. If his recordings are notable, where are the reviews of those recordings? If these recordings were worthwhile, they would have been reviewed. I'm sorry, but an advertisement for Hans Boepple on Wikipedia just doesn't belong. Nadia Boulanger had people like Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein as her students. Has Boepple produced anyone close to an Aaron Copland? We99 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First, "a living healthy person like Boepple that hasn't toured in the last decade" may simply indicate that his attention has turned to teaching. Secondly, if Nadia Boulanger and Aaron Copland are the standards that Wikipedia is going to use to indicate which articles deserve to be on Wikipedia, then there are many articles in need of deleting. The decision of whether or not to include Boepple will depend entirely on this issue: whether this online encyclopedia tends to inclusivity or exclusivity. I don't think that I have the answer to that question. Do see the "classical music" section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines SCUMATT 2:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC). (Note: Scumatt, were you asking about inserting your signature? If you sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~, they will convert automagically to your individual sig plus timestamp when you save./Bishonen | talk)

• • • If his attention has turned to teaching, what is the evidence to show he is a teacher worth putting into Wikipedia? What are the names of his greatest students? The issue is really whether SCUMATT should be allowed to legitimize mediocrity under the rhetoric of "inclusiveness." I think not. We99 03:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Provisional Delete. Delete. I'm sorry, but I've been watching the development of this debate, expecting the keep voters to come up with better arguments, and I don't see it happening. The "unique age, unique city and unique set of songs" argument, or that "the chairman of the department can always print a diploma using university's special paper on it and ask his professional peers to sign it as a professional courtesy" don't really do the cause any favors, so I'll just disregard them. (I'm inside the "university degree factory" myself, and, um, no.) If the enthusiasts of B who have posted here don't come up with something more concrete, I'm going to vote "Delete" myself. SCUMATT, the decision doesn't so much depend on "whether this online encyclopedia tends to inclusivity or exclusivity", or how ably you can argue in the abstract, but more on what specific references you can supply. The reviews of recordings and names of notable students that We99 asks for would help, for instance. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

KEEP! I agreed with some earlier comments that Mr. Boepple does not need a Ph.D. to receive the international commercial recognition that he has receievd. There is a complete justification for keeping Hans Boepple is that he has made many contemporary developments classical music. Even if Hans Boepple is humble enough to refer to them as extraordinary secrets, those contributions deserve to be kept because his work is unique within the music profession. There are so few Bach purists, so few tenured music teachers, old school international competitors of international renown, Western European music experts, purists who respect the international developments of the last century, who have composed works with the unique key sequences that Mr. Boepple brings to the keyboard. It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia if those who delete him do so without trying to find his songs and listen to them. I am not sure who is qualified to delete Mr. Boepple without listening to his compact discs, reading more about him, or seeing him perform in concert. I vote that we trust the neutrality and honesty of SCUMATT that Mr. Boepple has no knowledge of these articles or of SCUMATT's attempts to independently document his story (that more than satisfies my definition of history). Mr. Boepple's accomplishments are independently and adequately documented in Santa Clara University's website and the SCU alumni association magazine and written by people of color and people of gender who speak highly of him. Every reporter knows it is necessary to interview the source directly in order to have an accurate story. I feel the stories about Mr. Boepple are either accurate because he is quoted as a direct source or they are developed independently and are therefore neutral. These salaried university employees do not have any publicist commission interests in overstating or understating the accomplishments of Mr. Boepple so we can safely assume that they are stated at the correct level because it is a university publication that has passed editorial or some peer review muster. We also need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple. Mr. Boepple's music star rivals have every incentive to give him a poor review so those reviews need to be disconted. We need to filter out any biased comments from jealous individuals who have not earned the tenure that Mr. Boepple has. He has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist if not a master musician. Many other music chairs lack the specialization in piano performance that Mr. Boepple has. I think if we document all the money that Mr. Boepple has received for any of his music expertise, we can conclude that he is a music professional and therefore deserves privilege of an article solely for the payments he has received for his music which seems far more relevant than answering questions about a degree he could have earned before any of his students were born. Golf players are accorded respect for the size of their money purse or their professional status. Why can't Mr. Boepple be accorded some respect for the size of his professional purse? He is more than a dallying amateur who could not hack it in the competitive world of classical piano and then needed to earn a living from one of those ultra-high paying low-class televised professions that lack the artistic respect that Mr. Boepple obtains freely. Mr. Boepple has earned the role of a tenured classical professional who consistently speaks the truth and should be respected for his position instead of constantly flip-flopping between professions because he does not know what his profession is. His sphere of influence is not restricted to a monolithic organization's monolithic website. If knowledge of Mr. Boepple is ubiquitous common knowledge, then I vote that this article should be allowed to document HIS story about what his job as a music chair is. Musicpro 02:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Musicpro 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Er...is the above new user writing in response to my request for references? "We can safely assume that the SCU alumni association magazine has ... some peer review muster"? We need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple...? And he has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist...? Thank you, I quite understand, I'm now fully ready to vote delete. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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.