Talk:Daniel Sonenberg

Proposed merge
The contents of this article do not warrant a separate article aside from the mention in the subject's work The Summer King (opera). It is proposed that what is notable for inclusion should be merged into that article. The mentioned rock band is not notable for inclusion; thus individual content can be parceled out to appropriate articles, Portland Symphony Orchestra, The Summer King (opera). Maineartists (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Points of merger
 * 1. "His work Baseball Songs won the Robert Starer Competition Prize." Content can be merged with "The Summer King (opera)", since content is similar to article and subject's work.


 * 2. "He composed First Light: A Fanfare for Maine for performance by the Portland Symphony Orchestra at the bicentennial celebrations for the US state of Maine." Content can be merged with Portland Symphony Orchestra article regarding their 200 year celebration. Maineartists (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding the fact that he won a prize for one piece to an article about a different piece would not be appropriate - the two may be thematically similar but they are not the same work. The bicentennial composition can be mentioned at the PSO article, but can also be mentioned here. The individual meets WP:GNG, having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including News Center Maine, Down East, Portland Press Herald, Portland Phoenix, among others. Works other than The Summer King have received reviews in venues including The New York Times and the Portland Press Herald. The rock band for that matter has also received coverage, eg from Portland Phoenix. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then add it to the article. Simply bringing the sources here to the Talk Page does not make for a WP:GA. Expand the content from the research provided; including the significant "coverage" (notable) for the rock band. In other words, walk the walk. Maineartists (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one ever claimed this is currently at GA level. But the sources here on the talk page are sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed merge should not go forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From what was presented at the time of this article's creation, the proposal for merger was perfectly understandable; and until what was brought to the Talk Page is added and found to be of notable reason for inclusion by other editors to warrant this article stand-alone merit, my proposal for merger still stands. The request for WP readers to invest trust, time and acceptance on what "could be" or "should be" is not proper standard. Maineartists (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, what is presented here is sufficient to demonstrate that a standalone article is appropriate; bringing the article to GA standard is not required for that purpose. After all, there is no deadline. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. But there is no rush either. An article can have the same community contributions and edits in a draft space than a main space. But I digress. Once again, the source "Pytheas" is not a reliable source as it is primary to the subject. All the information is provide by the subject. It must be removed. Maineartists (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge – The subject is notable in his own right. You misread WP:PRIMARY. The Pytheas Center is prima facie a reliable source. GA criteria are irrelevant to a stub. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "prima facie" is not a WP term. The Pytheas Center relies entirely on content provided by the subject listed. You are mistaken. There is absolutely no comprehensible way that the Pytheas Center would know any of this information if not provided by the subject themselves. Please provide here the proof that the Center researched all the content found on their site by citing other secondary sources to base that claim. Impossible. You misread WP:PRIMARY. Maineartists (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The proof you propose is also not a requirement. I agree with Michael Bednarek that this is a reliable source, and I don't see anything in PRIMARY requiring its removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)