Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik


 * 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The result was   keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable biography as noted by a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First impression: rather bad translation of a German WP article. They typically come without sources, even Siegfried Palm (which I translated). If Grychtolik edited Bach's St Mark Passion and BWV 244a, he is notable enough, but the article needs work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment He is not notable merely for having edited some famous works; he is only notable if those editions have become notable in themselves. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I started looking into the matter, found his reconstructions performed, broadcast, published, himself announced as a player for concerts in 2011. I started adding refs, also two biographies (as external links) which support facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gerda. He's notable, since he's been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Graham 87 12:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not just mention. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Added one more Bio, and another broadcast. Is significance measured in numbers or importance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both. cmadler (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The relevant guidelines for this article are WP:CREATIVE as this person is, essentially, a creator of musical works (new editions of existing works), and WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines. To be considered for inclusion under WP:CREATIVE, Grychtolik would need to meet one of the following:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * Widely cited is not the same as performed. As Grychtolik appears to be the only editor to provide modern transcriptions of many of Bach's works, it is not significant that a particular group chooses to perform his transcription, or that he chooses to perform his own transcriptions.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * No evidence of this
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * No evidence that Grychtolik's editions have become the subject of any independent reviews (this would be the criterion I would most likely expect to see passed for a person of Grychtolik's background)
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * No evidence of this.
 * The article's citations of sales catalogs, performance program notes and database listings do not constitute a single instance of significant coverage in independent sources. (I.e. fails WP:GNG)
 * Failing all of these criteria, there should not be an article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * English is not my first language, so this a lot of guideline readings. The person is not only a creator, but also an academic teacher and a performer. Most important: he doesn't "transcribe" Bach music, but reconstructs lost Bach music, which means makes it possible to perform it at all, large scale works like BWV 247 and BWV 244a, which later was used for the St Matthew Passion BWV 244. That seems of high importance to me, even internationally. I agree that program notes are no reliable sources, but the fact of a performance and its broadcast is, or not? At the Köthener Bachfest the Köthener Trauermusik BWV 244a was performed in the context of Bach's Mass in B minor (Collegium Vocale Gent, Philippe Herreweghe), a concert of the Thomanerchor and Georg Christoph Biller, and one of the English Baroque Soloists and John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply You state that Grychtolik's work "... seems of high importance to me". It may well be, but there are no independent sources indicating that the musical world at large feels that it is of high importance.  If this work by Grychtolik is so significant, it should be verifiable by citations from publications that are writing about him.  If none are, then the significance is not verifiable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the field of music, discussing and writing about a work is one thing, a performance another. The repeated production of the works mentioned above (and their broadcast) is an indicator of significance. (Some music never gets performed. Some gets performed but only once.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't believe that is the intent of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, but I'll leave that to the admin who evaluates this discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Gerda is right. I've spent a few hours working on this, reading about him and his work is very significant. Just the fact that he's been published by C.F. Peters is very big. Peters is a leading (if not the leading) publisher of classical music. What this guy has done is, as Gerda said, reconstruct lost works of music by Bach, thereby making it possible to perform them in concert again. The article is no longer just a list of performances that may mean nothing to the non-musical reader. It now explains more clearly and with references from magazines, newspapers, trade publications and other sources, that Grychtolik has made a name for himself and the significance of his contribution. Marrante (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable enough now. Thanks to the authors. These facts here guarantee signifcance. Nfu-peng (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Either I'm missing the point, or everyone else is. It is clear from the cited references that Grychtolik has done some work (perhaps even some groundbreaking work).  But a person is not notable for having done work, they are notable for having some independent source notice their work.  All of the citations in the article are to festival appearances and sales catalogues, etc.  There is not a single instance of significant coverage.  But I've shouted from this rooftop enough.  I'll let the admins evaluate the various arguments.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NM, particularly WP:COMPOSER, and WP:PROF. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - After mulling this over for a few days, I think that&mdash;based on the current sources&mdash;we have little choice but to delete this article. Aside from needing sources to establish his notability (meaning, in this case that reliable independant sources have taken note of him beyond the ordinary level), sources are also needed to give us information. If, as in this case, there are few or no reliable secondary sources that have written about him (which purposefully excludes schedules, sales catelogues, and the like) then anything we might write about him could only be original research. The only such source I see provided here is this short TLZ article, which certainly does not give us enough to hang an entire Wikipedia article on. So, unless additional suitable sources can be provided, I think this article must be deleted. But, I suggest that 1) one of the article contributors is welcome to userfy the article and continue to seek sources, and 2) if suitable sources can be found (which I think will happen eventually&mdash;gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that much more is likely to be written about Grychtolik in the years to come) I'd support the recreation of the article. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The addition of sources, especially the Neue Musik Zeitung article has convinced me to change my opinion. cmadler (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, in agreement with Gerda Arendt and Michael Bednarek, though this is a close call. The large number of sources added in the last few days are a testimony to the diligence of Gerda and Marrante but, it has to be conceded, mostly do not contribute to establishing notability (too many notices of festival appearances and sales catalogues, as WikiDan61 notes). That said, it is not necessary that all cited sources be used for this purpose, and it appears to me that there is (marginally) a sufficient number now. The arguments here are clouded somewhat by disagreement about the nature of the subject, and in which of several areas he may or may not be regarded as notable ("co-creator", "performer", "musicologist", etc.). I do not see anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that notability need be established in all areas in the subject's life, and my take on Cmadler's crystal ball prediction is that teetering on the brink of acceptability now, with a strong likelihood of increased notability in the near future, it is better to keep than to delete and then recreate in a matter of weeks or months.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. See Gerda Arendt and Michael Bednarek's comments.  This is clearly material that WP readers interested in Bach and in early music would want to be able to read.  Why serve them ill by deleting it?  Opus33 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- OK, I'm convinced. The addition of this review in the German NMZ site, and this review in recent days indicate the Grychtolik's work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews.  Kudos to those editors who have worked hard to find actual significant sources.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As one of those hard-working editors, the two items you cite above were in the article when I posted for the first time last night. All you had to do was look. But because of your comment at 12:08 today, and Cmadler's at 13:08, I've just spent another three hours trying to find more articles. I did find one (on a tip from Gerda). I'm glad everyone is now satisfied. Marrante (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. My German is weak at best, so it was difficult for me to assess all of the references at first glance.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also apologize; I somehow missed the NMZ citation when I looked at first. I do still think this would benefit significantly from additional sources. cmadler (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted, though it would be nice to have questions asked regarding language issues. I really did a lot of work on the article last night and was rather surprised that it seemed to make no difference. I felt that the sources I had included were good and I like to think I know what I'm doing here. There are still a few sources I could include, but I have been holding back and even deleted a few because I felt that "better" is preferable to simply "more". There's one source that mentions Grychtolik several times, but it's a blog. It seems to be a fairly good classical music blog, but after all the complaints here, I didn't use the site for refs, thinking I needed to stick to newspapers, etc. or risk making the article's subject look like a wannabe. There are a couple of other refs I've found, but have not evaluated them thoroughly because of the pressure I have felt to provide "significant" enough refs. Marrante (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (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.