Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Goldstein


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Martha Goldstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete - Though I appreciate this individual's contributions to wikipedia, this does not warrant an article per WP:BIO. Djma12 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A bit of web searching has turned up three recordings issued in the late 1970s, early 1980s, two of which were apparently reviewed in mainstream publications: the American Record Guide and Stereo Review. This information has been added to the article. According to WP:MUSIC two such recordings are considered to be sufficient for notability. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:MUSIC. "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:" ... "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories."  None of the links provided have any information other than the fact that Martha Goldstein made a record or had a small community concert. Djma12 (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The link to the Google Books listing for the Stereo Review article clearly provides evidence for a review. The article in the American Record Guide discusses the instrument used and the tunings used and appears to be discussing the importance of the recording to the emergence of the original instrument movement, so it is more than a typical directory or release listing. I feel these leads could be pursued and may well provide good evidence of notability. It seems like we should make an effort to improve the article and keep it, if possible. Please also read WP:DEMOLISH. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a way that we can actually read these supposed reviews? It is extremely hard to evaluate the notability of an individual based upon small Google snippets with their name highlighted.  More importantly, for notable individuals, we shouldn't need to rely on tiny Google snippets with their name highlighted... Djma12 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that she made LPs, a number of them. The evidence suggests that at least one, possibly two, got reviewed. (Am I responsible for the fact that Google can only present snippets?) One of the problems here is that it's a borderline case, and her recordings were made before the web existed and are out of print. Obviously she's not a big star like Martha Argerich or Rudolf Serkin. I made an effort to try to find things to improve and save an article which I did not create. I was motivated to do that much because the lady has indirectly done us a favor by releasing her recordings without copyright restrictions, and I enjoyed listening to them. Sorry, but that's all I can do for now. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that it seems a bit paradoxical to me that on the one hand the editors of the Wikipedia would select one of her performances as a "Featured Audio File" and on the other turn around and delete a biographical note on the performer as being "non-notable". Guidelines are guidelines. Perhaps they do not need to be so rigidly enforced. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep. There appears to be some notability here, as indicated by Robert Allen, above. It is thin, owing mainly to the fact that it predates the web. Wikipedia highlighting a performance as notable (and as a featured sound) isn't valid here, simply because Wikipedia isn't a reliable source - what we say doesn't matter. But the sources about the artist are sufficient, if barely, to satisfy the notability guideline. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:54, 12 April 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.