Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grietje Terburg Rowley


 * 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 no consensus. Per Tim's comment, before renominating consider creating an article about her most famous work and merge to it instead. SoWhy 15:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Grietje Terburg Rowley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple minor name checks. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not finding the type of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources needed under WP:GNG. The obituary cited in the article appears to be a paid death notice rather than an editorially prepared obituary. Also appears to fail WP:COMPOSER, although she might squeak by if it could be shown that "Be Thou Humble" was a notable composition. Cbl62 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Switching to neutral in light of article improvement.
 * Keep. I would say that, as a rule for this category, any author or composer of any hymn printed in any hymnal that was "the" official LDS hymnal at any time is notable. However, even if that's a bar that some would find too low, a hymn author whose life was described in a talk at LDS General Conference ought to be notable enough to merit an article. There may have been more talks than hymns, but only a few talks describe a hymn and also say something about the composer. (I'll also say that "Be Thou Humble" is one I've heard many times, recognize the tune of, etc.; I know that just because I say it isn't evidence of notability here, but if there's a list of the top 100 most-sung songs sung by the Tabernacle Choir, or a list of the 50 most-used songs used in Sacrament Meeting, taken from a random sample of programs from various wards across a few years, I suspect that song would be on it, and I think presence on such a list would be evidence of notability.)   DavidLeeLambert (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue about notability is really one of getting a sufficient number of sources from which you can actually write an article. There really isn't much material to dig up right now, and of the sources which have anything at all in substance is really just the obituary.  If her life was the subject of a professional historian or at least a journalist who wrote up more about her life in detail... preferably more than one such journalist/historian... then it would be worthy of a Wikipedia article.  You can find numerous such scholarly/news articles about Bach, Beethoven, or even John Williams (to use a much more contemporary example).  Such source material can be found about contemporary composers who have achieved notability from a wide variety of places.  To use even an LDS example, you have Naomi W. Randall which you can compare, but frankly even Mrs. Randall has numerous additional sources to draw upon that have yet to have been included into that article.  Is it impressive that somebody, anybody, has been able to get a hymn accepted into a standard hymnal?  Absolutely.  Is that by itself sufficiently notable when any secondary sources are going "meh?" about the life of that same person?  Likely not.  I don't see how this particular article could be expanded to any significant degree, while that of Naomi Randall could definitely be expanded.  Anything additional would need to be original research doing things like interviewing her family and taking steps that would be outside of the scope of Wikipedia.  --Robert Horning (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources in this article are not primary sources. The work of the official LDS Historian, Steven E. Snow, is not in any way a primary source on Rowley or directly connected to her. The premise of this delete is we cannot have sourxces produced by the LDS Church for subjects that are LDS. This is a totally unworkable standard, and not at all usable. The sources here provide more than enough evidence on Rowley's work and impact to justify having an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I want to point out that people have complained at how few women there are in Category:Converts to Mormonism, only to see multiple people in that category, such as Rowley, face their articles being put up for deletion, especially in this case which seems to be part of a concerted effort to delete lots and lots of articles on Latter-day Saints. However unlike Aburto who clearly has the sourcing to show notability, Rowley just does not have it.03:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) I think I forgot to sign this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:COMPOSER in being credited for the music in several notable compositions, mostly hymns, which have earned first prizes in hymn competitions, as per source, and is well-established in the list of women composers, as per Claghorn's source, which I also brought in the article (along with other two sources). --1l2l3k (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator – I'm not seeing any evidence that the works of the subject are actually notable, at least per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 15:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was not specific enough in explaining which bullet of WP:COMPOSER I believe she satisfies. IMHO she satisfies #4 (Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. This is established by her winning prizes in hymn competitions, organized by the Hymn Society in the United States and Canada. For this type of music, the competitions organized by the Hymn Society are the highest form of competition. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - As far as I can see, her main if not sole source of notability is the LDS hymn "Be Thou Humble". Wouldn't the procedure then be to do an article about the hymn rather than her, just like a notable company's article would be preferred to its founder's article? Nonetheless, not being an expert on hymn notability on Wikipedia, I'm voting based on not seeing either subject meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 22:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The additional sourcing by 1l2l3k shows that Rowley clearly passes composer notability guidelines 4. We absolutely should keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Only have to meet one of the WP:COMPOSER criteria, and 1l2l3k showed that she does. Bakazaka (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 is correct that the cited source does not show she specifically won competitions organized by the Hymn Society. While subject need only meet one of the WP:COMPOSER guidelines to be notable, the specific award is not currently not verifiable, and therefore the subject is unable to be verified as meeting that guideline. Retracting !vote until verifiable award information supports the claim to notability. Bakazaka (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * see my answer below. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Johnpacklambert and Bakazaka, keep due to improvements by 1l2l3k. Deaddebate (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator – Some of the !votes above are based upon the subject winning prizes for their hymns in some unstated competitions, but the only source available at this point is This source in the article, which provides no preview to verify. No other sources have been presented herein to qualify WP:COMPOSER as having been met. Furthermore, and importantly, meeting one criteria of WP:COMPOSER does not guarantee presumed notability at all. The lead of the section states (bold emphasis mine): "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". May means potentially, not absolutely. What are the names and significance of the competitions or the prizes? How many competitions occurred, and what type of and how many prizes were awarded? Are the prizes awarded by the LDS church? Where is the significance of said awards from unknown competitions to qualify WP:COMPOSER from the start? Not seeing it thus far.


 * The subject also appears to fail WP:SPIP to qualify for a standalone article, which states, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."


 * I haven't found one independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject, and it does not appear that independent sources providing such necessary coverage actually exists. North America1000 15:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I entered a quote for source disputed (The Hymn 1996,  Volume 47 - Page 15). You can easily google that sentence and it will appear in your search. Thank you for your patience with this. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The quoted sentence does not specify which competitions she has won, and the claim has to be verifiable. Bakazaka (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The full Hymn journal source is available through HathiTrust . The easily Googled quote cited in the article, which Google only provides out of context in Snippet View, is part of a short blurb in an article in Hymn about Oberlin alumni and their current activities. It is not an official report of Hymn Society competition wins, and the information is likely self-reported by the subject and compiled by the Hymn article's author. Bakazaka (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your research, and you may very well be right that the Hymn's journal author received the information directly from the article's subject (not the article's author, as Wikipedia was not around in 1996). However, that is merely your speculation. You don't know the research that the Hymn's journal author did, and you can't vouch for it. It is, furthermore, not up to you to decide how the author compiled that article and what work he/she went through. In addition, that journal qualifies as a reliable source for the subject in question (hymns), so I don't see any problem in using it as a source. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2018 (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.