Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalia Carneri


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Smerus (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Amalia Carneri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete -fails WP:NOTABLE. (See discussion at Wikiproject Opera for background). The article cites a few recordings of individual songs or arias, mostly where Carneri is singing in duet with another. None of the others by the way seem to be notable or have articles. And the citations are just - and purely - that; listings with out any comment on the quality, value or significance of the recordings. The article gives no indication of Carneri ever having sung a major (or even minor) role at any opera house. Criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, which has been cited in favour of the article in the linked discussion, states "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." It is more than arguable that Carneri does not meet this criterion (certainly no "albums".) (And if we accept that Carneri is notable then anyone who made any recording on (e.g.) Zonophone is notable - this is certainly not the intention of the criterion cited). Carneri's life and death are completely without sources or citations. The long list of (apparenlty) newspaper clippings without any insight or reference as to their contents, and yet listed as 'references', is useless and pointless in a WP article and does not support notability. Smerus (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. See WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO. Carneri was recording during the first decade of the 20th century during the beginning years of recording technology. She was recording for major record labels of the day because these were among the very first recording companies in exsistance. Records created during this time could often only fit one song; so in essence she did record "albums". Criterion 5 should be applied through the historical lense of the time at which she was alive and recording. It wouldn't be fare to judge her achievements in the same way that one would judge a contemporary artist. She was a pioneer in a burgeoning industry.4meter4 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NRV -"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I think this negates any 'acoustical pioneer' argument where there is no attention from secondary sources. Also, see WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines - which clearly sets out the criteria, none of which are met by the present article.--Smerus (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete - agree with Smerus. Maybe an argument could be made based on historicism that *any* recording artist of the acoustical period (1895-1925) is notable, but until that argument is made, I recommend delete. - kosboot (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I found a blog that cites these sources:

Marienbader Tagblatt June 10, 1898, June 10, 1898 Pilsner Tagblatt, January 20, 1905February 3, 1905 and March 2, 1904, October 3, 1903 Fremden Blatt Vienna, November 8, 1899April 17, 1906 and August 1, 1897; Deutches volksblattapril 9, 1907; Westungaische grembote July 17, 1898 Egerer Zeitung June 25, 1898 and March 11, 19051907 Oftauer Zeitung January 12, 1899 Neuie Freie Presse, Vienna, July 11, 1898, September 2, 1898, February 9, 1898, December 12, 1903, October 14, 1905. Saaren Zeitung April 9, 1904 Das kleine Blatt July 2, 1932 Badener Zeitung December 9, 1931, January 10, 1932 Orsovaer wochenblatt, July 3, 1898

So plenty of notability there. I just have to get my hands on some of this, and I will add it to the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those sources are the same ones listed in the article. Nearly all of those papers are provincial except for the Neue Freie Presse (which is digitized but not OCRed). Until the author (a descendant) does some research, I'd say a blog is an excellent place for this info. - kosboot (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see they are in the article, too. Well, imho, if she were a singer today with 12 references, even if in local papers, we wouldn't be questioning her notability. I don't think we should ax her just because those references are 100 years old. Let's see if we can get some quotes from these.
 * I've provided links to the digitized issues of Neue Freie Presse on the article's talk page. If you can find them.... - kosboot (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a line for the first reference I could find - the line I added is about the same length as the entire source. - kosboot (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can promise you that some PhD student in music history will thank us for keeping this article around. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - leaning keep because she seems to have had a notable recording career, at the very least. However, there aren't any sources verifying the biographical details. How do we know she died in the concentration camp? 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * More comments. First, the guideline on the notability of classical recordings is a red herring.  We aren't discussing the notability of Zonophone 78rpm 10-inch single-sided pressing with a catalog number of 88424 (I'm making that up, but by way of example).  Certainly it is extremely unlikely that any one of her cylinders or 78rpm discs are notable individually, but that does not mean that collectively they give no indication of notability.  Quite the opposite.  Regarding the newspapers, I am very unfamiliar with which German publications would be widely read, but I would think that Radio Tag, Deutsches Volksblatt, and Badener Zeitung would all be more than small-town-local.  What I can't tell, of course, is if any of these have substantial information about Carneri, or if they just have half-a-sentence that says "Amalia Carneri sang two selections".    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that no one has yet presented any evidence that makes her recording career notable by the WP standards. It is therefore quite incorrect to say that 'she seems to have had a notable recording career, at the very least'. And as is pointed out there is still no verification of any biographical details.--Smerus (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Notable. Satisfies GNG (which is not interested in whether sources are 'provincial' or any similar nonsense) and the spirit of criteria 5 of MUSICBIO (due to the large number of singles). If it does not satisfy the letter of criteria 5, it is because criteria 5 contains an incompetent WP:RANDYish drafting error due to albums not existing at the time due to technological limitations. Accordingly deletion based on the said drafting error would violate WP:IAR, the main policy of the project. Since policies trump guidelines, you cannot beat IAR by invoking notability guidelines, because they are only guidelines, and IAR is a policy. I don't think you could come up with any argument for deletion that does not require extreme wikilawyering to sustain it. James500 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO. The article could use some work, but meets the basic criteria to avoid deletion.  1bandsaw (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I now find the bulk of the article seems taken verbatim from this blog, which is dated November 20 2015 (before appearance of article on WP). Therefore WP:COPYVIO needs to be considered.--Smerus (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment The copyvio that Smerus noted needs to be rectified - blanking the page if necessary. Barring the copyvio issue, I don't advocate deleting the article, though. The newspaper sources could very well have significant coverage. Since the article is using those to support its notability, can we confirm what type of coverage, routine or significant, those clippings give>?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I re-wrote it.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#5 and WP:SOURCEACCESS. (This assumes the citations are real.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no copyvio because the blog owner wrote the Wikipedia article. Please note that the names are the same: and Nancy Polk. By the way  needs a notification on her Talk page that her article is being AfDed. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Significant news coverage for its era and recordings released by major labels. Plus, the article creator is willing to provide more sources. Neodop (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was easy to document that she had a long career performing in a number of venues, and the number of press reviews and of recordings are large for the time. Her transportation to Theresienstadt and death at Terezin are also documented; I found and added a reference from a Holocaust database. So the article does not lack verifiability. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I congratulate the various editors on the way this article has been improved and sourced and am happy to withdraw the AfD. I hope the remaining areas of the article which still require sourcing can be appropriately dealt with. -Smerus (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2016 (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.