Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco Manzecchi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ——  Serial # 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Franco Manzecchi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Vmavanti (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is sourced to an encyclopedia article about Manzecchi in The New Grove (Oxford Music Online is a mirror of this encyclopedia). This is the premier scholarly encyclopedia on music; it is sufficient to write an article of substance on Manzecchi. Chubbles (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that articles need only one source? I mean that seriously, not sarcastically.
 * I am saying that, if Manzecchi has an article of substance in a music encyclopedia, that is sufficient to demonstrate that he can and should have an article of substance here in this encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point is clear. But it's wrong. I don't have access to the resources that the editors of Oxford Music Online have because I don't work for them. Given that I don't subscribe, I can't read the article they have written to see how long it is, how substantial it is, or what sources they have used. Moreover, I'm not going to defer to the authority of Oxford. If Oxford says it, it must be true. If Oxford wrote about it, it must be important. I don't believe that. There's no such thing as a perfect authority, so editors shouldn't bother looking for them. I can make good arguments about why this or that entry in New Grove is wrong. Last, it's yet one more act of useless faith for someone to tack a template onto an article that says "Google Translate will solve your problems". It doesn't. I've read those crappy machine translations that can't even get the pronouns right, calling women "it.". I'm astonished anyone puts up with it. Using these "translations" is a sign of desperation. These articles aren't important enough to warrant desperation or any other extreme emotion. Let's deal with matters in the here and now, with what's in front of us. The authority of Oxford is an abstraction in the clouds. "There must be sources" isn't even an abstraction. It's fantasy and wishful thinking. I'm happy to add reliable sources to an article. Where are they?

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have been reluctant to comment here, in the hope that others will, because I know from experience what sort of flaming anyone who dares to disagree with the nominator will get, but it looks like someone has to bite the bullet. Manzecchi has an entry in the world's foremost English-language encyclopedia of music, so has been shown to be an encyclopedic topic. As for the nominator's rant above, we absolutely do defer to the judgement of reliable sources such as the Oxford University Press rather than use our own opinions, and nobody said anything at all about Google Translate - the instructions that come with the template in the article specifically warn against relying on machine translation alone. There are very many editors of the English Wikipedia who can read French, and this is not just a collection of articles whose sources one particular editor has access to. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sentence one: You are probably crossing over into incivility when you say "what sort of flaming anyone who dares to disagree with the nominator will get". People have been banned from Wikipedia for much, much less. I'm not saying you should be banned. I want people to speak freely. But there are consequences, too. I'm saying you should choose your words more carefully, because your word choice indicates the quality of your thinking. Clearly you haven't clearly thought out what you mean by "flaming" in relation to my posts. "Flaming" has multiple meanings, usually negative. But if you mean I take words seriously and argue my points rigorously, then I take that as a compliment. Thanks. "Dares disagree", though, implies I'm intolerant of disagreement. Wrong. I have little patience with strongly-held superficial responses, particularly in serious or semi-serious, time-consuming matters. The consumption of one's time is always a serious matter. You portray yourself as both a victim ("I know from experience"...sniff sniff) and a reluctant hero ("I have been reluctant...but someone has to bite the bullet"...I don't really want to but...Here I Come to Save the Day!...tuh-dah!). It's an introductory sentence that would make anyone stop reading and grab the air-sick bag. Vmavanti (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By that you have confirmed that my reluctance was well-founded. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would make better arguments, you wouldn't be so afraid to debate them.Vmavanti (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Two people now have made the claim that if an item appears in Oxford Music Online, then it is necessarily notable. Does anyone else on Wikipedia agree with this? Before you answer, you might want to read the documentation...much...more...carefully...Vmavanti (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there needs to be re-education on the difference between an opinion and a fact. Here's a fact: There was flooding in Texas yesterday. Now here's an opinion: Oxford Music Online is "the premier scholarly encyclopedia on music". Here's another: Oxford Music Online is "the world's foremost English-language encyclopedia of music". Which is repeating what the first person said rather than analyzing whether it is true or even relevant to the matter at hand. Anyone ever see the Seinfeld episode where George eats a candy bar with a knife and fork? By the end of the episode, there's a diner full of people eating candy bars with a knife and fork. Look at this way: Do the birds of your neighborhood hang out with other birds, or do they say, "Hey, let's get to know that Rottweiler over there"?

Vmavanti (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Michel Laplace’s article about the subject in the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the standard music encyclopaedia, is partly visible to non-subscribers via Oxford Music Online. Sources are also available to verify his roles on recordings by Chet Baker, Larry Young, Lou Bennett, André Hodeir, and others. There can also be found an event at the 2019 Ravenna Festival on “From Ravenna to Paris. Franco Manzecchi, a pioneer of the modern jazz drums” . Overall, enough for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the standard music encyclopaedia": Did you read my post, the one directly above yours? Did you understand it?
 * Yes, "the standard music encyclopaedia". For example; "For music lovers, the New Grove dictionary is Wisden, Britannica and the Bible rolled into one." The Guardian Books, 2001; "the leading English-language authority on music" "Writing about Music: A Style Sheet", etc. AllyD (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have quoted one person's opinion from one British newspaper. That shouldn't satisfy anyone about anything. I'm sure you understand how these companies sell products. Advertising oneself as "the leading English-language authority on music" has as much reality in it as the belief that one will be surrounded by supermodels after opening a can of the appropriate beer. It's just talk, and not very persuasive talk to thoughtful people. In fact, there is no such thing as an infallible authority on music or anything else. That goes for the other two great authorities mentioned, Britannica and the Bible, both having a long history of skeptics and detractors. Yielding to authority isn't something we're supposed to do on Wikipedia. "I know Frank, I like Frank, he's a good, smart man, and if he says it, then it must be true". That's not what we do on Wikipedia. You've got Wikipedia all wrong if you are suggesting that because an article has appeared in your chosen authority, then therefore there must be article written and that subject is automatically notable. One can distinguish between "this source is reliable and can be used" and "this source is not only reliable and useful, it's authoritative, infallible, and if they have written about it, then by God, that's good enough for little old me."


 * 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.