Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Walker (writer on music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was Keep. Nomination also withdrawn. Agent 86 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Walker (writer on music)

Alan Walker (writer on music) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not meet Verifiability or Notable Biography requirements. Further, the article seems to have no useful information other than to identify that the man exists and he published some works. This article is over a year old and I don't see it evolving. Alan.ca 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing admin: Note that Alan.ca has withdrawn his nom, below, and voted Keep. --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The infomation here seems solid enough to warrant a page. Jamesbuc
What makes the information solid? There are no references! Alan.ca 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've added a couple of references including a NYT profile/review. His multi-volume biography of Liszt is considered a major work in music history, certainly monumental within Liszt scholarship. --Dhartung | Talk 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, WP:BIO states Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The article now has one citation that isn't even associated with a statement in the article. As you can read, the notability requirement states multiple citations. It has been over a year, and now we have one on the stage of deletion? I still think it should go. Alan.ca 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Alan.ca, do you honestly believe that a book reviewed in the New York Times has never been reviewed elsewhere? I submit that you are arguing in bad faith. The goal is to improve the article, not to prove that you were correct in making the nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter what you honestly believe, show me the sources. If they're so easy to find, why don't you and the rest of the objectors take the time to integrate a few of these 'excellent sources' into the article? Alan.ca 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I also feel it is germane to point out that your name is "Alan Walker" as well, at least according to your User page. What exactly is your motivation for this nomination? --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you have also placed Alan Walker (academic) on {{prod}} here. Is this a little project of yours? --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I decided to search my name to see for entertainment value if any other people whom I have met with my name have articles on here. In reading the articles I found them to be poorly source and lacking verifiability. How I am to find the articles is not relevant, I started this afd for the purpose of a fair debate and detracting from that debate to make accusations is counter productive. Alan.ca 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Seems to be a recognised authority on his specialist subject. Grutness...wha? 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Recognized based on what citation? Alan.ca 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Where to start? if it's good enough for the Hungarian Quarterly, the Canadian Encyclopedia, The University of Georgia... Have a look at what some of those sources say: "The first volume won two international book prizes: the James Tait Black Award for the best biography of 1983, and the Yorkshire Post award for that year's best book on music. In 1974 he was made an honorary fellow of the GSM. He received medals from the American (1984) and Hungarian (1986) Liszt Societies and in 1986 was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada." (from the Canadian encyclopedia); "Dr. Walker is the author of a three-volume, prize-winning biography of Franz Liszt, published by Alfred A. Knopf (New York), and Faber & Faber (London), a project which took him twenty-five years to complete, and for which the President of Hungary bestowed on him the medal Pro Cultura Hungarica. The biography also received the Royal Philharmonic Society Prize, presented by HRH The Duke of Kent in London. Time Magazine hailed the biography as "a textured portrait of Liszt and his times without rival". The Wall Street Journal called it "The definitive work to which all subsequent Liszt biographies will aspire." The Washington Post selected it as a Book of the Year." 9from UGA). There's even a Book of essays commemorating his 65th birthday! Very notable. Changing vote to strong keep. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You can start by editing the article and integrating these supposed citations. I looked at some of what you've listed here and many are self published articles. They don't seem to say much, but to indentify that the man published some works. In fact, his article says about as much. He's alive, he worked at a university and he published some works. I can think of numerous university profs that meet this criteria. Are you suggesting that every published university professor should have a bio on here? Anyone who has a Ph.D will have written something, as they have to be published to get their Ph.D! Alan.ca 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I know that - and it takes a lot of effort. no, I'm not suggesting every PhD or professor deserves an article. But one with multiple international awards? That's a different matter. As to "supposed citations", are you suggesting that the Canadian Encyclopedia would make these things up? And yes, one of those articles (a strange definition of "many") was by Walker himself, it is true - perhaps simply picking the first three of the many articles on him online was not the wisest choice on my part, but there are many more. Her's clearly very notable. This is beginning to have the faint whiff of bad faith nomination. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Gruteness, bad faith would imply I had no basis for the nomintation. The article was short and wasn't verifiable. Since the nom, and this debate, the article has improved substantially. Please remember that a biography of a living person must be well sourced. This is not my POV, this is a well established view on wikipedia. The fact that the participants in this debate were able to solve the problem is clearly the result of good faith contributions.Alan.ca 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although the article could be cited more thoroughly and expanded, he is notable enough as a writer. An Amazon search proves the existence of these books. The JPStalk to me 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 245 JSTOR hits for "Alan Walker" + Liszt, which include many reviews of his work. Seems like he would also met WP:BIO criterion #2, The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. One year is nothing. Nobody's paid to write these articles; they write them whenever they have free time. Just be patient. Zagalejo 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair comment, thank you for contributing a productive point. Although, it would be nice if people would do some leg work before creating these low quality articles.Alan.ca 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep an apparently accomplished writer on music. I found 210 references in Lexis-Nexis using "Alan Walker" and Liszt. Although, I would like to see a better disambig parenthetical.-- danntm T C 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the Times review cited demonstrates notability, I think. For the disambig, perhaps (musicologist) would serve. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of crappy articles on Wikipedia on topics which really are unverifiable, or where most of the content is junk. Attacking brief and factual stubs on people who are obviously notable and clearly verifiable, as was the case with both Alan Walkers (and both these articles were in fact referenced), looks suspiciously like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Upp◦land 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out other crappy articles is not a fair argument for keeping one. In fact, by pointing out the article is crappy, you offer support for deleting it.Alan.ca 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not say that this article was crappy. It is a stub. It needs to be expanded. But what is in there is easily verifiable and was sufficiently sourced at the time of your nomination. Upp◦land 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment No, pointing out an article is 'crappy' is to support cleaning up and expanding the article, not deleting it. Pointing out that an article is not notable or is unverified would be to support deletion. Anyways, I would support a Keep here for all the above reasons. --The Way 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, an unverified, crappy article should be deleted, see wp:v.
  • There is a world of difference between a "crappy" article and a properly-formatted, wikified, and categorized stub. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Dhartung Caknuck 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page contains more effort and contribution than the article we're debating. This article, after you remove what is not verified by independent sources only contains:
  • A name
  • A list of publications
  • A link to a biography on another site

wp:v clearly states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Would someone please tell me, what verified information is in this article other than what I just stated. If the article only contains what I have explained it seems to be it is not worthy of keeping. Again, remember, the person and the article are two different things. We're not discussing deleting the man, but only his poorly sourced, non encyclopedic article. What value do we get from this entry?Alan.ca 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "This page contains more effort and contribution than the article we're debating." That is exactly why nominating such an article for deletion is a really bad idea. First of all, the article was perhaps not ideally, but sufficiently sourced (just as the article on Alan Walker (academic) which you prodded). It was sourced with a link to a web page at the McMaster University Library. And finding more sources which verify the information is easy if you bother to look. (There is even an article in Grove on this Alan Walker, but, as has already been demonstrated, you don't need access to Grove to find additional verification.) Secondly, by wasting your own and other people's time and energy on debating this article you are in effect diverting attention from useful tasks, such as expanding this article or finding and discussing those other articles which we do need to get rid off. Upp◦land 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have the same answer for you as I did for Dhartung. I prodded the article, this didn't prompt anyone interested to improve it. This is not my area of expertise, I am merely challenging an article based on wikipedian principles. Those 3 pillars we all read about when we began editing here. You guys don't need to argue with me here, modify the article, include the sources and this AfD process will be moote. Alan.ca 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Debating an AfD is not disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Everything I stated in my nomination was in good faith. Alan.ca 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You've basically just admitted that the article should have been given an {{expand}} or {{unreferenced}} tag. You're the one who dragged this into AFD, so suggesting that we're being counterproductive is nonsensical. You started the process. On my presentation of two excellent citations from the New York Times and the Canadian Encyclopedia, the honorable thing to do would be to withdraw your nomination so as not to waste any more of our time. I'm quite happy to add to the article, but I honestly have other things going on in my life at any given moment and Wikipedia is a pleasant hobby for me rather than a job, and you are not the judge and jury of your own nomination here, so please don't act in an obstructionist manner. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if someone would do the work, you apparently have no time to do. As much as we have had discussion on what can go into the article, I have yet to see these changes to be implemented. Please refrain from the personal attacks. Wikipedia will be a better resource if people are encouraged to cite the sources.Alan.ca 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The fact that it has already been demonstrated that this person meets verfiability and notability requirements already shows that the article should not and will not be deleted. Just because the article needs work and needs expansion does NOT mean that it should be up for deletion; that's not what AfD is for and it really is nothing more than a disruption in order to make a point, which can get you banned. This looks more and more like a bad faith nomination... --The Way 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD debate is not a trial for the nominator. Everytime an AfD debate results in keep it does not imply the nominator should be banned anymore than every unamious result for delete should result in the editor to be banned. Through this process many improvements have been made to the article. Please remember, Verifiability supercedes subject notability. If an article is not verifiable, it should be deleted. However, in this case, the article was greatly improved and therefore I now agree that it should be kept. It is, in fact, bad faith to assume a participant in an AfD debate with a viewpoint contrary to your own is not acting in good faith. Deletion is a reality of this project and I hope you will keep an open mind to contrary view points in the future.Alan.ca 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move per above. Importance clearly established. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I withdraw my submission as the article is now well sourced, verifiable and an excellent contribution to wikipedia. Thank you to all for taking the time to make this article encyclopedic. Alan.ca 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. In the future, though, please don't treat AFD as WP:GA with a five-day deadline. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Dhartung, I keep repeating myself, you keep making the same assertions. I started the AfD because the article was not well sourced or verifiable. This is a basis for deletion if the subject is notable or not. Once again, I tell you, there is a difference between a notable person and an article about them. You assert the man is notable, now the article proves this to be true. When the process started, I believed it did not. You will also note that the speedy deletion criteria does not apply because the article asserts notability. I never tagged the article with speedy deletion. Prod and AfD are the avenues for editors who believe the asserted notability is not verifiable. I appreciate the debate we've had here, let's not close it on a bad note.Alan.ca 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine, fair enough. Tell me why it is that nominators almost never say, "OK, I'm open-minded, that sounds promising, can you find more sources?" Once in a blue moon, perhaps. Usually they say, "Nope, not good enough, work your butt for this article if you expect it to be saved, I will not be moved by your puny NYT citation." I like to "save" articles from the axe when I can see that they deserve it, but I run into this stonewall attitude all the time. Sometimes I think the thing to do is just ignore the entire frickin' AFD debate and silently improve the article, but I've done that too and "lost" because I didn't add my voice to change the consensus. I would dearly love this to be less adversarial. What are your suggestions? --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability well established in this article. --Oakshade 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepI continue to feel that those who want to delete it should simply add the reviews instead. It should not be necessary to defend such a work as this. The argument that a NYT review alone is not enough is wrong in any case, because it shows an inability to judge the weight of sources. all newspapers and the reviewers are not equal. When its a question of having one review from a very non-notable paper, we'd be justified in asking for another (at least). DGG 01:38, 11 December 2006 (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.