Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Woof


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Woof

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No independent sources provided in article. A search finds no sources that contributes to WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 02:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Netherlands,  and Australia. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article creator User:Pkeets has been blocked for socking since 2021 Sockpuppet investigations-Pkeets. Also, I find no sourcing results re Barbara Woof including searching the Australian Composers website, the Australian Dictionary of Biography, and the various sites at the bottom of the article generated by Authority Control. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Could go under WP:G5 for this. The creator is blocked for sockpuppetry. CastJared (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As her compositions have been reviewed a lot, she passes WP:MUSICBIO #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." These reviews are by professional music critics, extremely independent of the composer, in fine newspapers, and in fact, are not always flattering. While the sections about her work, and that of the other individual composers, are typically short, it is original third-party analysis, and as such nontrivial coverage. Next to this significant body of reviews, of course, there are other sources in existence that support data, rather than notability, that do not add to or subtract from Woof's notability. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The compositions may have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself (although I can't see that from the link you provided), but she hasn't been and notability is not inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * She has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published work, not may have been. Composers are reviewed through their work, just like academics, writers, and other musicians. Nominating a Dutch 20th century figure without checking Delpher is not recommended. Now that it has been pointed out to you that she has been covered a lot, it's better to withdraw than to argue. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * may have been, in reference to the compositions, as you haven't provided any sources including significant coverage of the compositions.
 * In reference to her, WP:MUSICBIO #1 doesn't support considering individuals notable on the basis of coverage of their work. I'm also not certain that MUSICBIO applies here; the article says she is a composer, but MUSICBIO only applies to musicians or ensembles. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Composers, conductors, instrumentalists, and singers are different types of musicians. You never looked at Delpher. I have provided you with the link. Now please open the sources and read about the composer and her work. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Instrumentalists and singers are, but composers and conductors are not typically classified as musicians. Regarding Delpher, I'm asking you to provide a direct link to the articles that you were so convinced by; the ones I have looked at don't provide significant coverage of either Woof or her work. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be confusing musicians with performers. Musician: One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music. Also please note that, in this case, the bar PER source is nontrivial coverage, NOT significant coverage. I.e. REAL analysis and not just listings or other passing mentions. The totality of the nontrivial coverage is significant coverage. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The meaning appears to vary depending on which dictionary you look at; Cambridge, Collins. Looking at the examples provided (bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.), which are all limited to those who perform music, I believe this guideline meant the narrower definition, not the broader one.
 * However, whether it applies isn't relevant. MUSICBIO #1 requires coverage of the subject, not of their works, and so far you've only been able to provide search results, not actual coverage of her or her work. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about WP:CREATIVE#4 "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." Pam  D  09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe. However, we don't even have sources showing critical attention, let alone significant critical attention - and WP:CREATIVE only makes a person likely to be notable, it doesn't presume notability. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE #4 is equally fine with me. We are usually not strict on the extreme with historic or retired women professionals. Note that the two opinions above me only refer to technicalities and should be discounted. The article was translated in 2010 from Nlwiki, where it is a stable entry since 2007. Ten years later, the translator got into serious trouble for matters totally unrelated to this article. Apparently, in 2020, they got carried away in discussions and abused socks to gain the upper hand. Bad but irrelevant to this AfD. Books that do not include a biography are also irrelevant when other books carry her biography. gidonb (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As is evident from the sources in the article, she also meets WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. I haven't reviewed every source you've added to the article, but of the half dozen I looked at I didn't find any containing WP:SIGCOV. Can you link the best WP:THREE? BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Best one. She is included in the Australian national dictionary of composers. The rest are reviews and do not need SIGCOV. Just, overall, need to contain significant critical attention for Woof. To put it mildly, no problem there :-). gidonb (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't access the source, but looking at your reference I believe it contains the following:
 * Such a list isn't WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only part of the biographic entry. gidonb (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the aspect that you believe constitutes WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire entry. I brought only part of it. gidonb (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming it is more of the same and doesn't contain any independent prose then it is not WP:SIGCOV. If there is any independent prose can you quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * She passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. SIGCOV is not a focus of ether. You keep arguing instead of withdrawing. gidonb (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided an argument for her works having won significant critical attention, merely an assertion that they have. So far I see no reason to believe they have. As for ANYBIO, how does she meet that? BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the articles that contain said significant critical attention. She has an entry in the national dictionary of composers. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at half a dozen of the sources the only critical attention I could find of her work was Moreover, she wrote a beautiful work with 'Canzone', which has a delicate timbre and a clear structure, offering the orchestra an ideal opportunity to immediately indicate how the cards have been shuffled this year. Given that "significant critical attention" is quite a high bar - I would expect multiple extensive reviews of her work in high quality sources - I don't think it is met.
 * She has an entry in the national dictionary of composers. ANYBIO requires an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (in Australia, that would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography); it doesn't apply to specialized national biographical dictionaries like the Biographical Directory of Australian Composers. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have retrieved the text from only one article. As noted, the totality is significant. gidonb (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I have understood correctly, you are saying that that there are several reviews of comparable size to the one I quoted, and collectively they constitute significant critical attention? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. Comparable or more extensive. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom and the sock puppet investigation. My own search can't find anything satisfying WP:GNG. Karnataka (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (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.