Talk:Wolf Matthias Friedrich

Stub
As of today, the article consists of three sentences and mentions only one activity in 2000. Much more information can now be found here: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Friedrich-Wolf-Matthias.htm. The biography there has recently been expanded (mainly, but not exclusively by a translation of Friedrich's German biography on his own website), it is now up to date.

As a result, the German Wikipedia article has also been expanded considerably, with bach-cantatas.com as the main source. I suggest that the English Wikipedia article be expanded and brought up do date as well. (I don't want to do this because I am not a native English speaker.) --Lektor w (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a substitute for personal websites. Copying/translating material from his website or bach-cantatas.com will likely fall fould of copyright violation detection tools here. A list of performances and collaborators does not establish notability for singers. The German article doesn't mention a single in-depth coverage of Friedrich. Sources which only verify that he sang certain roles are not enough; he needs to be notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I said that the article should be expanded into an up-to-date version. I did not say that anyone should translate from his website or copy from bach-cantatas.com.
 * Notabililty: cf. SINGER, criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label [...]" Friedrich has a discography comprising more than 70 albums. User:Gerda Arendt, may I ask you, since you had created this stub article: Is Wolf Matthias Friedrich notable in your opinion? --Lektor w (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, expand. I expanded Psalm 104 yesterday because it was in the news, will expand Psalm 128 today, and have my own priorities. Do't use Bach Cantatas for a reference because we have one user who doesn't accept it as reliable. Carus and Wiesbaden for a start, and take care not to copy. (I'm also not a native English speaker. Be bold, Michael will correct the English, I'm sure.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. – As I said, I don't want to do this. Apart from being no native Speaker: Michael Bednarek's patronizing and destructive behaviour keeps me away from further commitment for this article, cf. revision history. --Lektor w (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm Wolf Matthias Friedrich. I don’t intend to take part in the discussion but I want to leave one message here: Frankly I have been unhappy about this article for six years now. May I ask you: is it possible to delete the article? If it is possible I would like to ask every one of you to help delete the article. In case of doubts about my identity you can write me an email (mail address, see my website www.wolfmatthiasfriedrich.de) and I’ll confirm that I wrote this message.--2003:EB:D740:1D00:C0B2:C457:FCA0:5B71 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. Seems nobody took notice of this important message. If the artist himself weighs in and requests deletion, this cannot be simply ignored. I don't doubt Mr. Friedrich wrote the posting since he offers confirmation via email.
 * Mr Friedrich, you are asking for deletion. I understand your wish well and I don't hesitate to support it.
 * I think your article has been a disgrace since it was created in 2015. Some months ago I had the idea that the article should be expanded by using http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Friedrich-Wolf-Matthias.htm but I was then told that in the English Wikipedia, bach-cantatas.com is not accepted as a source, just like your own website (see above). So this doesn't work. There are a few other texts about you to be found online but they only provide some scattered details. There are no articles other than bach-cantatas.com and your own website that provide in-depth information about you. Michael Bednarek has mentioned this as well. This means that we are not in the position to write a good article about you, or at least a decent article. I'm against writing a Wikipedia article (rather: a so-called stub article) about an artist when there is not even the chance it will develop into a good article. If the artist is then asking for deletion, as you do, I must simply say: Yes, I think that's the best solution, let's delete the article. But I can't decide this alone. I have to ask the others.
 * Michael Bednarek, let me ask you first, because you seem to know the rules well that are to be followed here. Didn't you suggest that Mr Friedrich is, Wikipedia-wise, not notable enough to have an article? If you are against the article, that would make three of us. What is your opinion, should the article be deleted? --Lektor w (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyone can nominate an article for deletion; see WP:AFD for details. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I'll read those rules later. But don't you want to share your opinion on whether deletion is appropriate in this case?
 * You know, this is what I didn't understand about your previous comments. You kept saying, at least indirectly, Mr. Friedrich is not notable. You said this when I tried to amend some details in the stub article and again when I suggested expansion. I thought then, if lack of notability is your opinion, you should not only try to block corrections or the idea of expanding the article, you should instead reject the whole article. So, if I may ask you once more: Would you personally favour deletion? --Lektor w (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that Friedrich doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, but I've never started or supported an AfD on that basis, and I'm not going to start now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's much clearer now. It still leaves the little question if you would support deletion if somebody else started WP:AFD, e.g. myself. It sounds like that because otherwise you should have added, "and I won't support deletion now". And after all, it would be illogical if somebody says, the person is not notable but his article should be kept.
 * I'll ask Gerda now. I think it makes sense to collect the opinions of the three people who have put some effort in editing and/or assessing the article before possibly seeking deletion at WP:AFD. That includes Gerda, of course, who created the stub.
 * Gerda Arendt, Mr Friedrich is asking every one of us to help delete the article, as he writes. I think this changes the situation, don't you as well? Deletion should at least be seriosly considered now. Do you still think the stub is worth keeping? Do you still think it should be expanded, even if there is nobody who wants to do it? Would you mind if I started an official deletion discussion according to Mr Friedrich's request? I would like to know your opinion. --Lektor w (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been told that the subject's wishes are the last concern to be considered. Let me check if the article can get more substantial in English. If it gets deleted, we'll be left with red links, - why would anybody want that? Give me a week in which hopefully not too many die. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote "I've never started or supported …. Gerda is right that deletion requests by the subject are usually not of great weight. Stubs are useful, if only to provide a mechanism to a longer article elsewhere. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Deletion requests by the subject are usually not of great weight? I found this at Biographies of living persons: Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions. That means that when the subject has requested deletion, it is advised to start a deletion discussion, and in this case, questionable notability is a second reason why a deletion discussion should follow.
 * But there is again a game changer. User Grimes2 is expanding the article right now. Maybe you might contribute a few more sentences yourself, Gerda. Mr Friedrich's request was about the the extremely poor three-sentence stub that had shown no growth since 2015. We now have an article about Wolf Matthias Friedrich. --Lektor w (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He is scheduled on my user page in the near future, as announced above, but recent deaths come first, as explained above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding: the (one) user who was against Bach Cantatas Website was banned since we discussed that. I'd still seek out other refs, as the Site copies and translates from others. I use them for recordings but not for biographies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. And many thanks to user Grimes2. --Lektor w (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks to Grimes2 and Gerda Arendt for creating a decent article out of this stub, which had stubbornly refused to become an article for such a long time. – By the way, when thinking about the article's development, I found the term stub-born article to be quite appropriate. According to Google, no one has ever used the term stub-born article online, although it applies to millions of other Wikipedia articles as well, in one or two ways. --Lektor w (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)