Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Capyrin

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. I'm assigning less weight to the earlier "delete" opinions, as they do not appear to have been able to take the subject's mention in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians into account. Sandstein (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitri Capyrin

Dmitri Capyrin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete and possibly salt. Non notable, unsourced autiobiography created by the subject of the article. Was speedied yesterday per Wikipedia:CSD#A7 and was subsequently recreated with no substantial changes.

I'm also nominated the following article for the same reasons obviously. This was also speedied as well.

Dmitri Kapyrin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)CyberGhostface (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, it's apparently an autobiography, and needs to be worked on, but the article is sourced from two different music pages: they're in the ELs, admittedly, but they're sources specifically about Kapyrin. Obviously fulfills notability criteria. Note: page needs to be moved, as both sources list him as Dmitry, and I'd guess "Kapyrin" is a better title than "Capyrin", since "K" comes from the more Russian-looking site. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If he's notable, why was it speedily deleted before?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply - It is likely because there was no assertion of notability. Reading the current article, there isn't a real assertion of notability. It doesn't say why he is notable as a composer. Whereas the external links are articles that do make a case for notability with statements about compositions being featured at music festivals, and placing second at a music competition in Turin. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources now in the article show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I do not know what shape this article was in when it was speedy deleted but I have to imagine that the deletion was done in haste because this subject matter is clearly notable per this - "Capyrin's music has been performed by numerous prominent ensembles and soloists, and has also been featured in a variety of concert and festival venues, including the Moscow Autumn (1999), the Paris Presences (1993), and the Zagreb Biennale (1993)" - and this - "One of the most prominent composers of the younger generation of Russians ... Kapyrin's works have featured at international festivals such as the Moscow Autumn, the Music Biennial Zagreb, Resources g3 (Paris) and the Almeida (London). In 1994 he won second prize in the ICONS competition in Turin ..." --Bardin (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see any independent reliable sources that make the case for his notability in the article. Allmusic.com is a blog; Phonoarchiv.org, I have no idea what it is. Either way, those two sources, in my opinion, don't necessarily demonstrate notability. I have done a bit of checking (admittedly not too thoroughly) and I don't seem to find anything about him in any news sources. If there are some independent, reliable sources found, I'd definitely change my opinion on this. BWH76 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Google searches for both Dmitri Capyrin and Dmitri Kapyrin (why this guy needs two seperate articles I'll never know) don't show that many pages either. I mean, information exists, but the fact that there was no article about him until the subject himself made an autiobiography (and it is one...he's writing about himself), when he's been in music for at least over a decade, says a lot to me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
All Music Guide is not a blog. The other source is the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. It's a bit odd stating that there's no independent, reliable sources or that there has been no articles about the subject when he's been featured in something as mainstream as Allmusic and something as respected as the Grove Dictionary. This isn't popular music from USA. It's contemporary classical music from Russia. --Bardin (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep one and redirect the other. The C spelling seems to be the one he prefers in English. AllMusic and Grove are sufficient to demonstrate notability. We'll probably need to get Russian-language sources on him such as Трибуна Современной Музыки (Tribune Contemporary Music) (featured profile). I poked around, I can decipher but not really read Russian, and there seem to be sites that may be record labels with biographical information. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way: CyberGhostface knows why it was deleted before: s/he tagged it for A7 speedy deletion, and it was declined by User:DGG because it "asserts at least some importance, so not a speedy". It was deleted as a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You're (intentionally or not) not mentioning that the Capyrin article was deleted because of "Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance" not because it was a copyvio. The Kapyrin article was the one that was deleted for being a copyvio.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been following this one closely for a while, and while I realize that others have been working on it, I'm still not convinced of his notability. He might be notable, but the evidence dredged up so far is mighty thin. He won a scholarship thirteen years ago. He won second prize in a competition fourteen years ago. His music was performed in Zagreb and Paris fifteen years ago. Even in his home country, Russia, the last time his music was publicly performed, according to the evidence, was nine years ago. What we have here is a composer who once showed promise, but appears to have burnt out after achieving a few minor things in his youth. Unfortunately, what he achieved in his youth is not really notable--it's just marginal. Now, in his middle age, he comes to Wikipedia to write an article about himself that asserts his "notability" based on his past promise. When the article is speedied, he recreates it immediately. How does a major composer have the time to do that, and why is it so important to him? I don't like anything about this. It smells really bad. In the past decade since his musical career petered out, how's he been supporting himself? For all we know, he may be driving a truck in Moscow and playing with the Internet in a cafe at night. As I say, he might be notable, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet, and there are just too many holes in this one for me to vote anything but delete. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You seem to be confusing accomplishment with notability. But notability is such a poorly understood concept anyway. Instead of looking for "evidence of notability," focus on the more concrete (and mercifully simple) question of whether there are reliable sources about him that can be used to write an encyclopedia article. 152.3.247.41 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 152.3.247.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Reluctant Delete: Grove's is a rock solid reliable source, but it's the only one, and we need multiple sources to keep. This "ICONS competition" referenced in the article has only seven Google hits, and the second to lead hit is this AfD discussion, which suggests it's spectacularly non-notable. Notability doesn't expire, but you need to gain it in the first place, and I don't see the proof of it here.  RGTraynor  15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Grove's is sufficient. We do not need multiple sources if there is one authoritative one. Two substantial mentions in RSs are taken to prove notability regardless, though with so many exceptions from NOT that it's almost meaningless as a criterion. But nowhere does it say that one good source is not sufficient. An authoritative judgment that a composer is important is just what we need. DGG (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Whether his career peteeered out is not our concern--we're not here to judge the music, but the verifiable information from the sources. DGG (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So I take it I was wrong in assuming autobiographies are frowned upon on Wikipedia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: They're strongly discouraged, but they don't form a prima facie deletion ground.  RGTraynor  13:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. I'll keep that in mind if I ever make an article about myself in the future.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Grove is the reference when it comes to erudite music. If it's good enough for the Grove, it's good enough for us. I'm not sure why this is even still being discussed. — Gwalla | Talk 22:30, 30 April 2008 (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.