Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric W. Sawyer

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. — Scientizzle 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric W. Sawyer

Eric W. Sawyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This person doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. The three references that the article provides don't cover him, they cover this one opera that he happened to write, and he is mentioned as an aside. In addition, the references provided aren't reliable seconday sources required by WP:BIO. Gets nothing in Google News. Therefore, Delete. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to let this one slide. For one thing, he shows up in Google News a little more often as simply "Eric Sawyer", see e.g. here, here, and here. While it's true that none of these links is, for example, the New York Times Arts section, I think that one doesn't just "happen to write an opera". My inclination is to say that if the opera is notable, so is the composer. Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Being mentioned in a few (reliable?) sources falls far short of the significant coverage requirement. There's isn't one source that directly gives him any coverage. Your inclination to say that "if an opera is notable (accepting for this argument that the opera is notable), so is the composer" directly conflicts with WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires substantially more then being the composer of one quasi-notable opera. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• My main point is that your original claim that "Google has never heard of him" is overstated. Better biographical information is found on his own web site (which I googled for as "eric sawyer" "composer") here. He claims he "has received the Joseph Bearns Prize, a First Music commission from the New York Youth Symphony, and awards from the Tanglewood Music Center and the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and has held fellowships from the MacDowell Colony and Harvard University." He also has a number of CDs unrelated to the opera listed on Amazon. Not being an expert in music, I'm not sure what the significance of those various awards, positions, and recordings are. But it seems to me that what this article needs is better sourcing, not necessarily deletion. Nandesuka (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Touché, you did a better job at googling. However, nothing that can be done if there's zilch in terms coverge of him in reliable sources. There are literally millions of people out there that have had moderate success in their profession like him, and rightfully, they aren't all in Wikipedia because they don't meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. The "significant coverage" requirement specifically weeds out these bios, otherwise Wikpedia will turn into the facebook for anyone who has ever accomplished anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The New International Year Book by Colby, Churchill, Wade, and Vizetelly (1938) describes the Joseph H. Bearns prize as "One of the most valuable annual American awards for composers." Possibly outdated, but a useful indicator of significance nonetheless. Nandesuka (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• More than "possibly outdated". If the award was as notable as it was 70 years ago, we wouldn't have major difficulties finding significant coverage in reliable sources of him having recieved this "award". Indeed, Wikipedia:Reliable sources was meant for situations like these, where the truthfullness of him even having recieved the award isn't clear-cut. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Improper over-stated AfD designed for deletion rather than discussion of facts. A press release (not a reliable source, but according to one admin, three non-liable sources = one good one, so we're well on our way) mentions coverage of him in other sources not on-line:[1]

Sawyer is an assistant professor of music at Amherst who studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner and won honors for his compositions at the Tanglewood Music Center. The Washington Post said Sawyer "weaves powerful statements into" his music, while the American Record Guide called him "a composer of considerable skill and stature." Sawyer's work has been released on the Albany Records label.

• So, the Washington Post and American Record Guide consider him noteworthy and a "composer of considerable stature," respectively. I'll stack this one up against a badly done google news search. His works are performed in concerts alongside those of rahms, Beethoven and Chopin.[2]
• Additional claims in the AfD says he's only mentioned as an "aside" in the sources. Wrong. He's mentioned prominently in the second sentence of the first source, so far away from being an aside, that the article includes off topic information about him. An aside means that, "oh, by the way it was composed by..." This isn't what it says, it says, "Composer Eric Sawyer, a member of the composition faculty at Amherst College, is the founder of Live in Concert, a nonprofit organization dedicated to expanding the audience for new music by presenting works by living composers in combination with other artistic media, including dance, poetry, film, and computer-assisted technologies." Not an aside. The second source also gives information about the composer, doesn't merely list him as "an aside. So, what's the guiding light for this AfD, that in one of three sources the composer is an aside? I'm going to conclude that the conclusion that the three references aren't reliable secondary sources is as accurate as the statement that he's only mentioned as an aside in them. Yawn. Keep. --Blechnic (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please provide the link to the Washington Post article proclaiming that he's a "composer of considerable stature." If this is true, this afd is a waste of time, and he's obviously notable.
• "Mentioned prominently in the second sentence of the first source" is not coverage. There's no coverage in reliable sources, the basic requirement for meeting WP:BIO.
• Admins don't decide WP:RS policy. This guideline that you mention, "three non-reliable sources = one good one" must appear somewhere in the WP:RS guideline. I doubt that it does.
• Studying with a Pulitzer prize-winner (not sourced) doen't make someone notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what you say, you've nominated it for deletion because the sources mentioned don't cover him and they do. Did you want to change your nomination and relist? Feel free. But your current nomination is simply false. So there's no reason to support it. --Blechnic (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure why you're posting "NOTINHERITED" as there's nothing in the article about Sawyer's studies with a Pulitzer prize winning composer. However, that's three strikes as far as I can see, nothing in this AfD seems to be related to the actual article. --Blechnic (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a "discussion" about Eric W. Sawyer's notability or lack thereof. You mentioned above that he "studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner". I assumed that you mentioned this information becasuse you were trying to prove notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, just to forestall that conclusion from anyone, I clearly presented, after the blockquote, the reason I felt that paragraph established notability. "So, the Washington Post and American Record Guide consider him noteworthy and a "composer of considerable stature," respectively." Feel free to read the whole thing. --Blechnic (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom and reasons above. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I've expanded the article a bit and added some references. There are some reviews of his work around, and a number of leads which I didn't have time to follow that may be useful to expand the article further. Seems to meet the notability requirements in the end, but, like always, I guess I'll see where consensus lies. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per reasons above User:heron10 16:56 2 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• — heron10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep per all the improvements made. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Bilby's amended article establishes notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the improved version of Bilby seems to fall short of satisfying criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC. Very few reviews of the subject's work are mentioned, one of them is in the Amherst magazine (a college newspublication), and another one in Fairfield Citizen News, which seems to be a small local newspaper. There are some references to Boston Globe, Washington Post and san Franscisco Chronicle, but it is unclear from the article how much of in depth coverage they contain (and I would still say that their number is too small to signify notability). Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - yes, that's the problem with having to rely on newspaper archives, as you can't link to them, making it hard for other editors to judge the context. In the hope it might help either way: a couple of the (non-linked) references I used are trivial (as were many of the hits), so I just used them to establish a performance date. About 5 or 6 of the newspaper references are non-trival, but not extensive, including the Washington Post (typically a paragraph or, at most, two, as part of a review of three or four pieces performed that night). The better ones I just managed to dig up - the American Record Guide review is extensive and very positive, the first San Francisco Classical Voice piece is reasonable (but not long) and very positive, and the second San Francisco Classical Voice is long and very negative. :) I gather that there are a couple of reviews of his printed work in Strings magazine, but I don't have access to them. Overall, I still lean towards saying he's just notable (the American Record Guide helps on that for me, as is the presence of a published CD just on his work, and another featuring some of his pieces) - not incredibly so, but enough for an article. Your mileage, of course, may vary. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Criteria 1 doesn't even apply to these references. The criteria concerns "musicians and ensembles", and these references concern a play, not a musician or an ensemble. Although he might have been mentioned as the writer of the play, the coverage was not of him. There has yet to be shown one reliable source that specifically covers him, therefore falling far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources standard, the very basic Wikipedia notability requirement. One who writes one semi-notable play just doesn't deserve a whole encyclopedia article about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree that "musicians and ensembles" doesn't apply. While he is a musician (pianist) that isn't what he is noted for. So he'd be under the "Others" sub category of Criteria for composers and lyricists. That section relates primarily to music, which fits with the references provided, but I think is a tad tricky to apply. I'm not sure I'd regard his opera as notable yet (that looks too much like WP:Crystal for me), in spite of (mostly short) reviews of the early performances, but I think he just meets the criteria due to repeated performances of some of his work, CDs, reviews (especially the American Record Guide, and potentially Strings magazine), and various mentions here and there. I don't think it is entirely clearcut, though, which is why I see these debates as so useful. - Bilby (talk)

• Keep Sufficient major newspaper coverage for his works. DGG (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, just enough coverage in reliable third party sources to justify keeping. RMHED (talk) 17:39, 7 June 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.