Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriele Buschmeier


 * 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. Consensus was that the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Gabriele Buschmeier

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-Notable Author with no significant work. No in-depth, independent, reliable source. Sonofstar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meeting GNG, article showing multiple secondary sources. I added some more. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Not Passing GNG, Please read the below comments, sources added by you are not helping to pass WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In your opinion not passing GNG, see below. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: This Musik Heute article and this Crescendo article appear to be significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. If my understanding of those two sources as reliable and independent from Buschmeier is incorrect, please let me know.Note: the following three articles also provide significant coverage but may not go towards GNG:
 * this one from the Landesmusikrat Rheinland-Pfalz does not appear to be independent of the subject (since it reported that she was on the Landesmusikrat Rheinland-Pfalz)
 * this one from the Internationale Gluck-Gesellschaft is also not independent from the subject, since it says that she was a member)
 * this one from Musik Woche for which I have no idea regarding its reliability (I can't find evidence of a solid editorial process)
 * — MarkH21talk 22:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC); struck a duplicate source and changed recommendation 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC); changed back to Keep 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: No passing GNG, I have gone through both the sources you added. 1st This Musik Heute article is not reliable for me neither independent, here the author name is not written, for the 2nd link this Crescendo article is written by the musik heute ( Music Today), which means it is not independent. Please add more sources, these both have some connection. Sonofstar (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You say “ musik heute ( Music Today), which means it is not independent.” What a nonsense that all music sources are not independent. In that reasoning it would mean British media are not counting towards notability of a British person. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply trying to explain that 1st source musik heute ( Music Today) don't have byline, its not independent nor very reliable. 2nd Crescendo source itself is published by musik heute ( Music Today), so this is not independent, for other sources explained very well. Sonofstar (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many more sources. Also for example Burger Koerier here. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please share the entire list if available. This is far away from reliable source list. They publish hardly 3-4 news a day and maxiumum 10. I doubt if this blogging site have any fact verification process. Please only share major publication not any random one. Sonofstar (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't realize that the Crescendo article is actually a republication of the Musik Heute article. — MarkH21talk 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed back to "Keep", given the Breitkopf & Hartel obituary and the reviews presented by hroest; a close call for GNG but a clearer WP:NAUTHOR#3 pass. — MarkH21talk 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the references cited by MarkH21 passes WP:BASIC comfortably. Chirota (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - obits in niche publications are nice, but they do not carry the weight of obits in major publications. Accomplished certainly, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According GNG it enough what you call as “in-depth”: “ A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” SportsOlympic (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * weak Keep, an obituary that is independent of the source from Musik Heute as well as other sources such as Breitkopf & Hartel means she should pass the bar per GNG plus several book reviews    of her work should make her pass WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 18:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR #4c. gidonb (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, , No, I cant understand what is the critical work done by her as per WP:NAUTHOR #3c, #4c which have a rare existance. Please list down the random books name written by her instead of sharing 4 review links by one random site. Well, none of her book have a wikipedia page or even major news publication. The only claim till now is 1 source. Musik Heute in a unreliable minor publication where there is no byline of the author, she is so non notable that users are bringing sources from music selling company like this  instead of news site. Now please bring major publication links only. Nothing personal but I hope I am making sense. Sonofstar (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor publications can be reliable, objective and independent. Please show the guideline that only major publications counts towards notability. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sonofstar, you seem to be confusing different levels of notability. At the basic level (that is met here), the author and her body of works are sufficiently covered for a biographic entry that covers her life and the totality of her work. Only at a more advanced level, not clearly met, works become individually notable. This is where I AGREE with you: a full list of works is badly missing from the article. If you really want to help Wikipedia: withdraw and/or create a list of works instead of arguing with other Wikipedians here and wasting everyone's time. That would be the most constructive use of time for this entry! gidonb (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining me that one minor source Musik Heute is enough to create a page and helps to pass WP:NAUTHOR #4c. I respect her significant work but unfortunately I can't find sources so after WP:Before I nominated. I have no intention to argue, leaving the discussion for admins and other users. Sonofstar (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your red herring, the one source that has been approved by the supposed authority of this page, is a gross distortion of my opinion. My opinion on this topic is brief but crystal clear: the collective book reviews make Gabriele Buschmeier notable. These come in addition to the one source you "approved" for us that is NOT the base for my opinion. gidonb (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have a second look, it seems you are mistaken here, JSTOR is the site I linked to and is not "one random site with 4 reviews" but one of the most respected and important collection of academic publications in the humanities. It is one of the main ways to check for academic work by and about the author, that is why its included in the AFD help template which is at the top of the page right below her name (see Find sources). The reviews that you dismissed so easily are actually published in "Die Musikforschung 54. Jahrg.", "Music & Letters Vol. 75, No. 2", "Die Musikforschung 46. Jahrg., H. 2", "Notes Second Series, Vol. 50, No. 1" which are all scholarly publications which have entries in Wikipedia and publish to the highest standard in the field. I hope this clears things up, I am not accusing you of failing to do WP:BEFORE but I hope you can change your mind in light of the evidence presented. --hroest
 * you are making some sense, I have no idea about jstor. If Getting reviewed by this site makes an author notable then alright. Now the theory is around JSTOR. Thanks for sharing this and let other editors decide. Rest, I don't agree for any other source. Sonofstar (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * JSTOR is the most widely used database for scientific research, alongside Google Scholar. Given the failed WP:BEFORE, the unnecessary arguing, and the clear notability of the subject, imho it's best to withdraw. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding onto what and  have said above, the point isn't that the reviews are from JSTOR, which is just an online repository of journal articles. What really matters is that Buschmeier's co-authored books Tanzdramen. Opéra comique. Kolloquiumsbericht der GluckGesamtausgabe and Opera incerta: Echtheitsfragen als Problem musikwissenschaftlicher Gesamtausgaben. Kolloquium Mainz 1988: Bericht were reviewed in Die Musikforschung and Music & Letters respectively, and her solo-authored book Die Entwicklung von Arie und Szene in der französischen Oper von Gluck bis Spontini was reviewed in both Die Musikforschung and Notes. Therefore her work has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (WP:NAUTHOR#3). — MarkH21talk 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is helpful. Sonofstar (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the research and further improvement above.      StarM 13:39, 21 April 2021 (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.