Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Singer


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lynn Singer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable voice coach, fails WP:BIO. Of the three references proffered, two are from her own website, and one is a reader-submitted quasi-blog. A Google search turns up her own website, Linkedin and other self-referential and blog pages; it's quite devoid of reliable sources.  Ravenswing  02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Simply to compare thoughts, not to be argumentative: I see this as a problem area for Wikpedia. The WP entries for voice teacher and vocal coach deal only with those who teach singing. They are completely lacking in sources. It has been suggested that they be merged with vocal pedagogy, which also deals solely with singing. Essentially, the teaching of voice and vocal technique to actors doesn’t exist on Wikipedia – which I, at least, find astounding. Part of the problem, I think, may in fact have to do with the difficulty of sourcing per WP criteria. These are important areas in the arts – an area in which I believe it is generally accepted WP needs work. It seems to me that in an area of activity where notabiity in the real world is mostly word-of-mouth, there will indeed tend to be a scarcity of sources. In this case, it would seem to me that the reference in Back Stage establishes notability, and that the other sites provide additional information as to some particulars per Living Persons criteria. I certainly don’t see how calling for deletion as non-notable is appropriate unless vocal coaching for actors is in itself non-notable. That seems to me excessive. I think it’s an area that needs work, and time, for WP to flesh out, but it seems to me that while it may be appropriate to tag as to stub status or the desire for additional cites, to call for deletion is excessive. Other thoughts? AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just added an interview to the entry. AtomikWeasel (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * . . . also added cite in which she is noted as to authority and prominence in Acting: Advanced Techniques for the Actor, Director, and Teacher by Terry Schreiber, Mary Beth Barber, and Edward Norton (ISBN 9781581154184). AtomikWeasel (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're not being argumentative. This is a common issue on Wikipedia, and the answer is that since Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, it's not within our remit to be a vehicle for the popularization of various fields of endeavor; it is solely to report that which our culture deems to be notable, using detailed guidelines to do so.  If you conclude that our society takes very little notice of vocal coaches for the spoken word, and has not given them the prominence and attention necessary to clear the bars of WP:V and WP:BIO, I certainly won't dispute you.  I can only say that we are not, and cannot, be trailblazers here.   Ravenswing  08:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I quite agree as to first instance – I meant, however clumsily and indirectly, to indicate that this is an area where I feel Wikipedia needs further development – thus my creation of the entry. As for this particular entry, it would seem to me that the cites added ought suffice to establish evidence per Wikipedia criteria as to notability – would you agree or disagree? AtomikWeasel (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't, I'm afraid. Singer's own website is debarred, since sources need to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and are required to be completely independent of the subject.  The Schreiber book only mentions Singer in passing, describes her not at all - as opposed to the "significant detail" required - and fails the independence bar seeing as the text explicitly states that Singer was working for Schreiber at the time.  The Back Stage cite doesn't even give that much; it's a line of text. Presuming that Soul of An American Actor counts as a widely accepted source in the acting industry, that's the only one which passes the minimum bar to satisfy WP:V, which requires multiple sources.  The much tougher bar is WP:BIO, which holds for creative professionals:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * If Singer has achieved any of these, the outside world hasn't apparently noticed.  Ravenswing  18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly, then, we differ as to the judgement call with respect to notability per Wikipedia criteria: I would argue that if a New York voice teacher is referred to at some length as an authority figure in the field in a book by a noted and respected teacher who runs a prominent school of acting that that fact alone should suffice to establish the fact, objectively, per Wikipedia criteria, that she is a prominent and notable vocal coach/voice teacher. We have that fact, readily verifiable, in Schreiber’s book on the subject, complete with foreword by Edward Norton. To my way of thinking, if a recognized authority in the broad field of acting identifies someone as an authority in the discipline of voice teaching, that’s definitive and objective as to the fact of their being notable in that field, in this instance voice teaching. The fact that Schreiber holds her in sufficiently high regard that he’s employed her in that capacity hardly renders the fact of the cite or its clear implication nonexistent or inappropriate per Wikipedia criteria. This cite, combined with The Soul of the American Actor seem to me clearly to satisfy Wikipedia criteria by any objective assessment, and the additional minor detail information from the subject’s own site(s) are in my understanding acceptable per Bio criteria as supplementary information. I fail to grasp any objectively valid reason for the assertion that the entry fails to meet Wikipedia criteria – perhaps I’m slow. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you cannot use Schreiber for a source for the reasons I cited above, your case rests on the assertion that someone you claim to be a recognized authority in the field of acting has widespread recognized authority in the field of voice coaching, and the inference that because Schreiber states his regard for a teacher he himself employs it automatically follows that he claims that she is a prominent, notable coach. That's quite a stretch ... considering that Schreiber himself didn't have an article until you created one for him last month, and that aside from his own website, that month-old article represents the second largest hits to date for Schreiber on Google.  I'm not challenging Schreiber's own article, but the premise that he is widely regarded as an authority in the field itself lacks backup by reliable sources.   Ravenswing  05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter, verifiably, is that the T. Schreiber Studio trained such folks as Edward Norton and Betty Buckley. The fact of the matter, verifiably, is that Terry Schreiber founded and runs that school. The fact of the matter, verifiably, is that in his book on acting Schreiber devotes two full pages to describing in detail Singer’s approach and refers to her as an expert. These are all verifiable objective facts. If in your judgement these plus the other cites adduced fail to satisfy your interpretation of notability per Wikipedia criteria then we differ as to our judgement as to the interpretation and applicability of those criteria and I suggest you request additional third party judgement in the matter or we simply await the judgement of the closing admin. I’ve attempted in this as in a number of instances to add entries to Wikipedia in areas which I felt were neglected but in which it was possible, at times with some difficulty, to satisfy Wikipedia criteria, such as the entry for Iseult Gonne. I judge this, and the entry for Terry Schreiber, to be similar instances in which, while it’s a challenge to satisfy Wikipedia’s criteria, it is in fact possible, and I’ve endeavored to do so. As our judgement as to Wikipedia criteria so clearly differs, I’m perfectly content to leave judgement to a neutral third party. AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale - Article is a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article is bereft of reliable secondary sources that establish notability under WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2010 (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.