Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Rojahn


 * 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. Nobody actually makes a "keep" argument.  Sandstein  19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Rudolf Rojahn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP that has been unsourced since it was created by an apparent single-purpose account 10 years ago, and tagged as such for almost 2 years. I took this on with a view to improving and sourcing it but simply didn't find enough to justify keeping the article. The subject is co-artistic director of a Chicago opera company that has received some coverage in local press, but none that I can find from further afield, and itself doesn't have clear notability. I don't see a case for keeping this article, the best coverage I found being, , , and - generally brief mentions from local press (admittedly some with large circulation) in the context of performances by the company. I redirected to the company, which was reverted on the basis that discussion was needed, so here we are. Michig (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: We have scores. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, but these appear to be self-published so would not affect WP:NOTABILITY.--Smerus (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong forum This is a content discussion, which can be fixed by normal editing.  As per WP:Deletion policy, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a dispute over page content. I don't think we should have a page on Rodolf Rojahn at all. If the article on the Opera company is also deleted (not covered by this discussion), we wouldn't even have a redirect. --Michig (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your nomination argument to be a discussion about a non-deletion redirection. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean that you're choosing to cast it in that light, and ignoring the part where Michig set forth the proposition that the subject was not notable and lacked significant coverage? If you say so.   Ravenswing   21:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Not notable and lacked significant coverage" is a notability argument, not a deletion argument (WP:DEL8). Michig is capable of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said.  His workmanship in the nomination deserves respect from the AfD community.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DEL8 clearly states that failure to meet notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. I don't follow whatever point you are trying to make. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can start by looking at WP:BEFORE A1, to which the edit notice advised you when you posted here. You will find that part of WP:Deletion policy is the Alternatives to deletion, by which we protect the work of our content contributors from deletions-by-committee.  This is a policy, which all editors should normally follow.  Anything else?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I read WP:DEL8, and it was quite clear that failure to meet notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. So yes, this is a deletion argument, and it certainly is not a content dispute. I understand the desire for alternatives to deletion, but in this instance I find deletion to be the appropriate outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL8 does not exist out of the context of WP:Deletion policy. Your claim that "it certainly is not a content dispute" is not policy based.  What source of authority do you accept for your understanding of deletion policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've admittedly been having trouble following your statements here, so I'm going to summarize my position very succinctly: I believe that this article fails GNG and therefore should be deleted. Does that answer your question? Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet your "trouble" stonewalls a remedy. So I'll simply say, WP:N is not a deletion policy, and you've not made a WP:Deletion policy argument since you've not refuted the possibility of alternatives to deletion.  In the current context, this is a hole in your argument.  Anyway, thank you for the response.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did address alternatives to deletion when I said that I considered deletion to be the best outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete We lack any RSs on this person. The scores are not enough to show he is notable, the same goes for his own webpages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Like the other editors, I failed to find reliable sources supporting the subject's notability, and certainly don't count a mere list of works on International Music Score Library Project (which is a user-submitted wiki) to be one. As far as Unscintillating's dissent goes, it seems to focus very heavily on not caring for the first sentence of Michig's nomination while completely ignoring the perfectly valid deletion grounds which follow.  One would think a much surer way of saving the article would be to produce evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing over semantics.   Ravenswing   06:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Michig originally boldly deleted the article and substituted a redirect to Guerilla Opera. Ths seemed to me rather too bold, so I reverted his deletion and suggested he take the article to AfD. I think the case is marginal - there ought to be sources, since the subject has won various awards etc. for which I am willing to AGF - but I find no convincing argument at present as regards WP:NOTABILITY in the article's favour. Therefore I incline to the view that Michig's original decision (delete and redirect) was in principle correct. But at least we've opened it to discussion.--Smerus (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not quite right. The article has never been deleted. It was simply redirected. --Michig (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michig that referring to this action as a deletion is not a good use of terminology. "Delete and redirect" has a specific technical meaning, which is that the edit history is deleted and a new redirect is created.  Delete and redirect requires the use of admin tools.  This is the diff in which Michig redirected the article.  Here is the deletion log for this page, and it says, "No matching items in log."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2016 (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.