Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan Shiji


 * 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. Tone 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pan Shiji

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lots of works by this composer are listed, but I see no sign that any of them is notable, or she herself is. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is a reliable secondary source and sufficient indication of notability. Anyone covered by another encyclopedic reference is considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. A search indicates she's also referenced in a number of other books and articles. Pkeets (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per her entry in Grove. If it's good enough for Grove, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Note also that this article is linked from Music encyclopedia topics. Why not check "What links here" before proposing an article for deletion? Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Groves is authoritative. Eusebeus (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. If it's in Grove than it is automatically notable. This was not a well thought out AFD nom.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Grove's online version requires a rather expensive subscription. When the article itself does not assert that the person is listed in Grove, it's impossible for someone who does not have access to it to tell whether if the person is in Grove.  --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to the extent that the original reference was very vague. When referencing to Grove, the exact title of the article should be given as well as the article's author, not simply a general reference to the entire 29 volume set or even one volume. If the original editor used the actual paper version, then the page number(s) should be given as well. Ditto for the other work by Mittler cited, who did an entire case study on her work, along with several other Chinese women composers. It should have the page numbers listed. Even so, when I see an article that I'm doubtful about, I always looked to see if it's linked at Music encyclopedia topics. All the people listed there have their own Music Dictionary or Encyclopedia entries.
 * Keep. Just one more affirmation that Grove is authoritative and it would very odd for us to delete an article on a topic where they include an article.  If you are thinking about proposing deletion of a classical music article and want to know if something is in Grove, the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers (I among them) would certainly be willing to help you.  Opus33 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2011 (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.