Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederica von Stade – Mahler Songs


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade – Mahler Songs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - there are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I chose not to paraphrase but used direct quotations because paraphrasing critical comments often misrepresents or distorts the original. It is not clear to me that these quotations constitute WP:COPYVIO. I don't have access to the Gramophone review any longer, so I can't make a quantitative comparison, but the NY Times quote is only two sentences from two paragraphs (with six sentences) comparing Frederika von Stade's recording to one by Marilyn Horne from a very lengthy article that discusses many recordings. In other words, the quotation is highly selective and cannot be construed as a copyright violation of the source. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quotations of two or more sentences are not uncommon on the Wikipedia. For example, see here. The bulk of the linked section consists of direct quotations. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article cites two critical reviews from two important publications: The New York Times and Gramophone. This satisfies criteria one which specifically states multiple critical reviews in publications, including newspapers, is enough to confer notability. As for too much quotations, the quotations can be removed or trimmed to avoid copyright concerns. Deletion is not the answer.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed by abridging the quoted reviews to uncontroversial length - it will no doubt be possible to supply further brief quotes in due course. The album was nominated for a Grammy for the best classical vocal performance of its year. For further coverage of the album, see Opera, July 2011, p. 870; Fanfare, Vol. 7, Issue 4, 1984, p. 203; American Record Guide, Vol. 44, Issues 1-6, 1980, p. 34; The Penguin guide to compact discs yearbook, 1985, p. 216; The Penguin guide to the 1000 best classical recordings, 2011; and New York Magazine, 23 Nov 1981, p. 80.Niggle1892 (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per 4meter4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the assertion that the originial direct quotes are WP:COPYVIO is simply incorrect. Here is an example of The Washington Post quoting three paragraphs from an article in The New York Times: (scroll down to the middle of the page). --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:04, 22 September 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.