Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Keast


 * 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. Despite spirited opposition from the nominator, there is only one other person who has called for deletion in this instance. Furthermore, the keep side have successfully pointed to significant coverage in major publications such as the Houston Chronicle and reviews of his performances. It was repeated in the discussion that the coverage of Mr. Keast in the LA Times and WaPo is critical, but for WP:N purposes, whether the coverage is positive or negative is not relevant.

I will also note that the arbitration committee recently stated a principle regarding WP:BLUDGEON here. While making replies to comments is clearly within the scope of acceptable conduct, making accusations such as "You just steamrollered in here without a clue" is not constructive. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Garrett Keast

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

BLP with woeful refs. Profiles and sps sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very very early career.  scope_creep Talk  18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom. Appears to be a beefed up LinkedIn resume. One source says he was born in Houston, and that's it. Whole bunch of records released with little to no sourcing to support it. Rest are trivial mentions in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Being the main author of the article I obviously vote for keeping it. Keast and his orchestra did indeed receive broader attention ( Five-Star-reviews from BBC Music Magazine, Fanfare Magazine and Das Orchester). I just added those after a quick research. Everybody who knows a little bit about the world of classical music is aware, that only very few people in this field make mainstream headlines. That does not make them less relevant. Andek (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The orchestra perhaps did, but the sources don't indicate that he did.   scope_creep Talk  07:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is his orchestra. Andek (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense. He's the founder and director of the orchestra. Those reviews are about him. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we need sources for wiki. "Just because" isn't a good enough reason. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added three sources to the article.-Andek (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, @Oaktree b: Would you mind viewing the sources further down and seeing if those could potentially change your vote? Why? I Ask (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contrary to nom, Houston Chronicle and Limelight are not profiles and sps sources. Maybe San Francisco Classical Voice too. Keep but maybe redo as an article on . Another review in das Orchester . duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that mean exactly? Rewrite the article as Berlin Academy of American Music and get rid of the BLP elements, or rename possibly with some BLP elements? That review is a bit of passing mention as well.   scope_creep Talk  09:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * refocus to be about the group but keep some details on founder and conductor. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are plenty of sources out there: a review of his album in the Winnipeg Free Press, a write-up in the New York Daily News , and a profile in Newsday . This is alongside the Houston Chronicle and Limelight magazine sources already in the article. There seems to be a BBC review too, but I can't access the source to verify. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Winnipeg Free Press states he is a conductor. Not the most salubrious reference.
 * Here is the LA Times There are large projections on stage of Bernstein famously conducting with extravagant feeling, something the company’s conductor, Garrett Keast, aggressively attempts to match with a pit orchestra. 
 * Here is the Washington Post and conductor Garrett Keast was not able to control balances to the singers’ benefit at all times.. Not even particularly decent conductor.


 * So there is reams of routine coverage, on the mediocre conductor, but none of it is signifcant and fails WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  20:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused? What's wrong with the Winnipeg Free Press saying that he is a conductor? And continued routine coverage in major newspapers alongside direct articles about him establishes notability. I didn't even reference the LA Times or Washington Post.
 * Your comments on Mr. Keast are bordering on WP:NPA. Please watch yourself. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All it says is he is a conductor. That is it. That is a true definition of a "passing mention". As its very very early career, he is working as a guest conductor moving from position to position, so it mentions him in the theatre pages as a conductor all over the US, but there is no real WP:SECONDARY coverage. It is all "he is a conductor, he was trying to do this and so on", but no more than that. It is not significant coverage.   scope_creep Talk  06:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're going to ignore the other two sources and the Houston Chronicle? It's a review of an album; not a biography. It's just one source out of many that can help prove notability. Reviews of an album in a paper of record are still nothing to balk at. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also some of the mentions hes getting, there is more stating he is not a good conductor. That fact of the article being on here, is a true WP:PUFF piece, is to advertise his album.   scope_creep Talk  06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And his talent as conductor has to do with... what exactly? The fact that you're able to find enough sourcing saying that only further proves his significant coverage. And his album has been reviewed by BBC and Das Orchester as mentioned above. Two notable things on one page: an album and conductor. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually it two reviews. I couldn't see the Houston Chronicle ref and could find the BBC one. I did find this though: Chron interview. I don't know if that Chron is reliable source.   scope_creep Talk  07:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Chron is the Houston Chronicle. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the Limelight sources at which is a review. So that is one review and one interview so far, that are in-depth. Interviews can't be used to establish notability.     scope_creep Talk  09:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews can be used to establish notability, but just like anything else, it's done on a case by case basis (see WP:Interview). I'd say in this case, it establishes notability. And you still haven't refuted my other two sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an essay not a policy and having long experience in Afd, close to 4k, I've seen it refuted many many times. Its junk.   scope_creep Talk  10:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And then there's no policy for not having interviews published by reliable sources count toward notability. Aside from that, the Houston Chronicle isn't even a basic Q&A format. It shows high editorial oversight. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment reviewed the sources as suggested, some are passing mentions. I'd give a weak pass to the interview, rest are brief and don't have substantive coverage. Still not sure GNG is met. Even in French sources (he worked in Paris), brief mentions . This is paywalled, unsure if it's a substantial source Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Still only seeing brief mentions. He's just a guy doing his job it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I managed to find the BBC Music magazine that stated as a reference on the article. The Febuary 2022 edition. It states: Transatlantic Works by Stravinsky, Takemitsu et al Berlin Academy of American Music/ Garrett Keast et al Onyx Classics ONYX4223. It on page 91, the "Brief Notes Reviews" section. It is five star review. It is another passing mention.   scope_creep Talk  14:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Houston Chronicle is a decent reference, no doubt about and its signifcant but that is not enough in this day and age to constitute WP:SIGCOV. The other stuff, that I looked at with the references above, the bio with about 15 lines is introducing him to the public, indicative of early career and lots and lots of passing mentions. It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. He seems to be very well liked, for example shown by the ref in the BBC mag, but its not signifcant coverage.   scope_creep Talk  08:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Whether or not the Houston Chronicle article, which is excellent coverage (in terms of WP:SIGCOV) on its own, is "enough" is irrelevant here. The amount of non-trivial coverage in large international publications unquestionably satisfies WP:GNG, as demonstrated above. Additionally, all of the comments about this guy being a "mediocre conductor" are textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the implication that long-standing (since 2006!) editor User:Andek just created the article to promote someone's album is absurd and a violation of WP:AGF. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It not a case WP:IDONTLIKEIT nor WP:AGF. All the coverage is passing mentions apart from 1 decent, profile review and bbc profile. That is it.   scope_creep Talk  15:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To spell it out, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT part is calling him a "mediocre conductor" and claiming "some of the mentions hes getting, there is more stating he is not a good conductor" as reasons to delete the page. The WP:AGF violation is your accusation that "the fact of the article being on here... is to advertise his album," when taking 30 seconds to check who wrote the bulk of the article shows otherwise. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference stated he wasn't a good conductor. You haven't even looked at the references. You just steamrollered in here without a clue.   scope_creep Talk  16:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have indeed looked at the references -- the fact that you assume I didn't and "steamrollered in here without a clue" (how exactly does that differ from just... commenting?) is another WP:AGF violation -- and agree with Why? I Ask about their usability. I don't have any opinion on this guy's skill as a conductor, but there is nothing in policy that states that a negative review is unusable for notability purposes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * scope_creep and Oaktree b. Your comments seem to show you both missed the German review I linked above. Any commentary on that one. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's useless, it's a CD review that talks about the music on the album. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)]
 * Yep, should have gone with my first thoughts and only pinged Scope. Waste of time doing otherwise. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up. I'm sorry I missed. I did search for that for quite a bit of time and couldn't find it. It is a profile references, a cd review. The extent of his passing mentions "Nevertheless, it is remarkable thanks to the colorful and varied compositions in excellent interpretations by the Berlin Academy of American Music under the direction of conductor Garrett Keast." They like him a lot, but it is another passing mention. Its not significant and more the same of the same kind of coverage we have seen elsewhere.   scope_creep Talk  14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is coverage for the group, backing up the alternative of refocusing the page to be about the group. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.