Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle


 * 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. I find the 'keep' arguments significantly stronger than the 'delete' reasoning particularly since the 'delete' !voters have not addressed nor analysed the sources that have been identified. Just Chilling (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Emmanuelle Waeckerle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This had been a straight copy and paste from the artists website. That speedy got removed when the article's creator attempted to rework while still extensively quoted. I removed all the COPYVIO and we're left with a short stub. My BEFORE led me to believe that she was also not notable but I was worried that I was potentially missing something so I didn't nominate but I see no evidence of notability per ANYBIO, any other SNG, or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete It is worthy of a stub but not one with her webpage address in it. That makes it more WP:Promo than the WP:Permastub it could have been Cheerio042 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I have updated the article with further links. There are now several articles including her collaborators that link to this article. The links include university websites and famous performance venues. Comment added by Newmusiceditor (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of those are eitehr trivial or not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ample evidence of notability as cited in article: Univeristy Professor, shows at major international venues, works in various internationally renowed publications. NewMusicEditor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmusiceditor (talk • contribs) 14:05, July 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. lacks significant and in-depth coverage. Tamsier (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, in terms of SNG, music (subject is a musician in a non-mass media genre):
 * Keep Evidence of notability includes:
 * 1) Interviewed on Resonance FM [] three times, most recently in July 2018.
 * 2) Featured on FR3 twice, once in 2003 and once in 2008, verifiable by contacting Institut national de l'audiovisuel.
 * 3) Featured on BBC Worldwide [] in 1998, verifiable by contacting the British Library Sound Archive
 * 4) Subject was featured in Artforum [] in 2002.
 * 5) Subject was the editor and a chapter author of an academic book by a reliable academic press and the book was worthy of note by an author in Art Journal [] in 2015.
 * 1) Her work is recorded on Edition Wandelweiser, an important indie label that has been around more than a few years and many of the composers on the label are independently notable. For those less familiar with this genre of music, here are some starting points: New Yorker columnist Alex Ross' digital addendum to his book The Rest is Noise [], author Jennie Gottschalk's digital addendum to her book Experimental Music since 1970 [], academic journal Contemporary Music Review's issue devoted entirely to the activity of people on Edition Wandelweiser [], author Tim Rutherford-Johnson's article in the edited [] online publication New Music Box [].
 * 2) As noted above she is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works.
 * 3) As a mentor in the Wandelweiser program Composers Meet Composers she is an influential teacher alongside other teachers who are independently notable.
 * 4) Is covered in publications devoted to her music sub-culture such as The Free Jazz Collective and Wire.

Taken together we see the subject of this article as being notable enough to be addressed directly and in detail in a variety of reliable, independent, secondary sources. We also see that the subject is remarkable enough to be discussed and mentioned across media -- television, academic journal, radio, magazines. Independent coverage of the subject begins more than 20 years ago and continues up through the present. I will continue to update this keep section as I obtain more archival sources, though I think there is plenty of reason to keep this article as the subject is notable. TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) 16:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Initial reason for nomination for deletion (large amounts of quotation) has been ammended and the article is original content. Move to keep article. Comment added by Newmusiceditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmusiceditor (talk • contribs) 12:35, July 7, 2019 (UTC)


 * Unless I am missing something that was never the reason.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The very first “delete” editor vote suggests the article was similar to the subject’s bio. The article is no longer similar to the subject’s bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The article's history does indeed show the evidence for my assertion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it’s nice when the process results in an article’s improvement. TheMusicExperimental (talk —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – I cannot find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This fails GNG. – bradv  🍁  16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The GNG makes the following recommendation: “before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.” Given the article subject’s decades of work in experimental music I think this article should be kept and that we all might consider following the GNG in locating additional sources. For example, I know that the subject was mentioned in a 2018 issue of Wire Magazine (a reliable, independent source for this genre) but the archives are only available to subscribers and therefore must be sought out in print. This genre exists primarily in print sources of this nature outside of publications like The Free Jazz Collective (which does in fact have an article about the subject). — TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The problom is that is the problem. A few (maybe even lots off) trivial, mentions, but those do not establish notability. If we look but cannot find we have obeyed GNG, it does not matter why we could not find.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The citation in The Free Jazz Collective is not trivial. This type of music will require seeking out sources beyond simple web searches. In this regard, it is valuable to, as the GNG suggests, “consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.” TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is this [], its a blog and therefore may not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, it may in fact be a reliable source. Especially in the experimental music genres. Certainly it’s been viewed that way in a few hundred other Wikipedia articles []. TheMusicExperimental (talk


 * As a note to the closing sysop, my results were of the quality that Slatersteven gave as an example above and thus not what I considered sufficient for passing GNG. GNG certainly does have some holes in terms of establishing N but it's hard to decisively say that this is one of them and thus Wackerle is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect that as you both gain more knowledge re the documentation of experimental music you will have a greater understanding of how subjects like this one intersect with GNG sourcing. In the US, for example, there are approximately three national-scope papers which might on a rare occasion mention this genre of music. There is only one large magazine extant devoted to experimental music (The Wire, which does have a mention from 2018 of the subject in question but it is behind a paywall). Situations like this are why the GNG encourages a more rigorous approach to pursuing and considering the possibility of existing sources beyond what is available in hasty web searches. TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven wrote: "A few (maybe even lots off) trivial, mentions, but those do not establish notability. If we look but cannot find we have obeyed GNG, it does not matter why we could not find."
 * However, the relevant notability guideline for people is WP:BASIC (not WP:GNG), which is quite similar but in one point different: It states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
 * So, trivial coverage does not cut it, but multiple non-substantial coverage in indepedent sources does in fact establish notability of a person, even if WP:GNG would not.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have identified the existence of additional sources which are not available in a web archive and am now working to get review copies. Included are: BBC reviews of subject’s work from 1998, FR3 interview from 2003, FR3 profile from 1993, review of work from the August 10th 1998 edition of The Independent written by Terence Blacker, review of work from the Aug 21 1998 edition of The Evening Standard written by Tim Cooper, profile in Contemporary Visual Art from 1997 written by Joanna Lawry. I suspect there will be more once I start probing the liminal time before all media was digitized. I’ll update the article as I review these sources. TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I’ve added two additional citations resulting from my efforts to consider the existence of sources that may be more challenging to find: one is a mention where the source author considered the subject’s work notable among a list of books, the other a more substantial focus within the source. The sources are Art Journal and Artforum, both are reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk 05:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a citation for a Cafe OTO performance devoted to her text works and others from Resonance FM []. Subject has been a featured guest on this radio station three times and I'll add more as I get time to listen to the other interviews. TheMusicExperimental (talk)


 * This is where the gap between notable and verifiable comes into play. There's no doubt that she's real and is of some renown. The doubt for at least me is whether that renown translates to notability. Despite your valiant efforts I'm not seeing it which might be an example of the shortcomings of notability more than you or Waeckerle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * FR3 has confirmed existence of two broadcasts about the subject and handed me off to INA to get the transcripts. BBC has similarly confirmed existence and passed me on to the Sound Library Archives. (talk)


 * Comment I'm not sure why editors above keep referring only to WP:GNG. It's quite likely that the subject might meet a WP:SNG. Finding reviews of her work might show that she meets WP:CREATIVE #3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Reviews don't have to be in print (paper or digital) - WP:PUBLISHED says that "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." I hope this AfD will be kept open long enough for TheMusicExperimental to check these audio archives. (Interviews will be less relevant, as they are generally considered not to be independent - though interviews vary greatly in depth, the interviewer's preparedness, the status of the publication carrying the interview, etc, so personally I don't think a blanket ban is useful, but there we are.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I was about to write something similar as RebeccaGreen above, I too was wondering why nobody was referring to the actually relevant notability guideline for people WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE #3 in addition to WP:GNG. If either of them is fulfilled the subject is notable. Given that the sources so far seem to be reliable but on a middle-ground regarding establishing notability, I think this is an important quote from WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
 * I am not familiar with the subject, but the evidence brought forward above (even if the research is still a work in progress) lets me assume that a mixture of either WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE #3 is likely fulfilled already, although apparently only slightly (unless more substantial RS can be brought forward in the future). Since I think we are doing our readers a better service having an article just meeting the threshold rather than having no article at all, and since the contents of the article does not contain promotional material or unsourced information which could be harmful to the person, I tend to a "weak keep" and hope that the article will develop into something more substantial over time, and with more and better sources.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST of the reviews of the subject's work identified by TheMusicExperimental above, which they will be accessing and adding to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I added an additional citation, a non-digitized article from Evening Standard which I requested from their archivist. The article is about an evening performance with multiple performers of which the subject is one. While I don't think this citation qualifies as "substantial" as it mentions several performers, I do believe it adds to the collection of WP:CREATIVE #3 as one of "multiple independent sources." I continue to pursue the BBC, FR3, and other citations (it's slow because it involves large orgs and I'm an ocean away, thank you for your patience). TheMusicExperimental (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per TheMusicExperimental and RebeccaGreen. Enough sources clearly exist. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:02, 19 July 2019 (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.