Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Blegen & Frederica von Stade: Songs, Arias & Duets


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Judith Blegen & Frederica von Stade: Songs, Arias & Duets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 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 - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * copyvio concerns can be removed, this has happened. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, although technically meeting no. 1 of WP:NALBUM - "subject of multiple [ie. 2 or more], non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." as article (now after possible copyvio being removed) lists reviews by Gramophone and Sound & Vision, past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be added in due course. See Opera, July 2011, p. 670 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work has received critic reviews in several offline publications, including High Fidelity, Volume 25, Issues 7-12, Page 91, 1975; Records in Review, 1976, Volume 21, Page 415; and Opera, 1976, Volume 27, Issues 7-12, Page 875 in addition to the Gramophone and Stero Review articles cited in the article. The album was also reviewed in The New York Times (see here) You can also see that the work charted at number 9 on the Classical Billboard charts here.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Comment For further coverage, see Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 21, Issues 1-6, 1976, p. 103; The New Records, Vol. 53, Issue 4, 1985, p. 12; Fanfare, Vol, 9, Issue 1-7, 1985, p. 91; Esquire, Vol. 84, 1975, p. 32; Time, Vol. 107, 1976, p. cxli. (Source: Google Books.) Any classical record reviewed in both Esquire and Time had to be very high-profile indeed. (The Esquire reviewer was William S. Burroughs!)Niggle1892 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NALBUM. Note that the mentioned extensive quotes from reviews were added after the article's author was advised to include them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, demonstrably meets WP:NALBUM with the reviews in the article and those listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 27 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.