User talk:Parzival Lustig

Notability criteria
Hi - Can you tell me in what way you think Daniel Hensel satisfies Notability (people)? At the moment it is close to an article that I think could be speedily deleted under criteria #7 for articles (An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject). That's why I added template:notability to the article. This template was deleted without (as far as I can tell) addressing the issue. Please either reply here or just update the article ("... is a German composer who " - like "has been written about in numerous German magazines" or "is the subject of a biography written by ..." or "won the most prestigious international composition award in 2006 for his composition ..."). There are many topics for which Wikipedia is not suitable, please see WP:NOT. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Rick:


 * Why should this site be deleted? The music of this composer is of an outstanding quality.Though he is one of the persons that work still in the background, he becomes more and more important in the young german composers generation and receives more and more perception. His music has gotten a european dimension at his last event. Not many students are growing that fast in the music world. You just have to look on the list of his teachers, that have been the most important german and austrian composers of their time.


 * You surely may delete it. But if you do that, there will be coming an other person in some weeks or months to create this site new. You would have to answer the question why a site of the composer Moritz Eggert is not deleted but the site of Daniel Hensel. Surely Eggert got more international reputation, but he is more than 14 years older.


 * I believe in Hensels music. I saw and heard him in Berlin and he was quite impressive to me. And he won international prizes as well.

The issue primarily relates to the availability of independent sources for the information in the article. As it stands, nearly the entire article is referenced from his own web site (which is hardly an independent source). The problem with using a person's own website to base an article on is that there's no way to know if the content on such a website is simply made up or is indeed factual. As a general rule, articles here are supposed to only include information that is available in multiple sources, independent of the subject of the article. You ask why keep the article Moritz Eggert. This is actually a good contrast. There is plenty of material available about Moritz Eggert, independent of his own web page. Assuming Daniel Hensel keeps composing and gaining fame and exposure, I'd expect there will eventually be plenty of material (independent of his web page) on which to base an article. Today, now, I suspect there is not. Does this make sense to you? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit, your explanation makes sense. Why does the german wikipedia team keep the article? Every unimportant person is listed there, which sucks for me.

I don't know what criteria the German Wikipedia uses for articles (although I suspect it might actually be somewhat similar). Please note that I am not at all suggesting that you or your contributions have no value here. I don't understand why this "sucks for you". Please don't be discouraged. There are many, many, many things to do here, including lots of articles to create. If you're particularly interested in composers, perhaps either of the red links at List of German and Austrian composers, or some of the red links at List of 21st century classical composers? Starting from a book about contemporary German composers might lead you to composers to create articles about (and if they're discussed in a published book they pretty clearly meet the notability standard). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Hensel. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Hensel, you will be blocked from editing. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do delete all my articles. They contain copyright material. Please delete the whole account.
 * Do you mean they contain material copyrighted from other sources?  The anti-vandalism bots think someone blanking a page is usually a vandal.  To request a page you've written (and been the sole or primary contributor to) add  to the top.  Per my message above, there are plenty of things to do here.  There's no need to delete your account, even if you don't want to contribute anymore (although I hope you do contribute).  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Daniel Hensel
I have nominated Daniel Hensel, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Daniel Hensel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)