Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. A total of 27 hits on Google for this book. Ridernyc (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What Google are you referring to, Ridernyc. I just did a search myself on Google and found this:

Results 1 - 10 of about 356 for Katia Tiutiunnik The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process

You were wrong in saying that it only had 27 google hits: it has many more and the book has now been acquired by the National Library of Australia and many other prestigious institutions. GoldbergEva

"The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compostitonal Process" is sold on many, many other sites besides Amazon and has been purchased by the National Library of Australia in addition to a number of prestigious university libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldbergEva (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC) One person should not have the power to decide whether or not something is "notable"--especially if they are not an expert in the field. GoldbergEva

There is no need to be offensive Ridernyc. LivingMuse is a colleague of mine and, no, we're not conspiring together. Also, what Google are you referring to, Ridernyc. I just did a search myself on Google and found this: Results 1 - 10 of about 356 for The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process by Katia Tiutiunnik. By the way, her page has been up for months and has been graded as a "B" class article, which is much, much better than many grades received by other articles on composers. Katia Tiutiunik happens to be a very original and notable Australian/international composer. Anyway, I'm sorry if I caused you any distress. I'm new to all of this and I just made some naiive mistakes.(GoldbergEva (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment Hard to reply since the editor above me keeps adding comments randomly unsigned and totally out of order, but in response to the questions about hits total of 30. Ridernyc (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Comment The article is no being filled with puffery about Katia Tiutiunnik, I'm not sure if any of this establishes her notability let alone notability of the book. Ridernyc (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet another comment now an obvious puppet of User:GoldbergEva, User:LivingMuse has shown up and started removing my comments. Both accounts signed up within days of each other and both are single purpose accounts. Ridernyc (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words Livingmuse is a WP:MEATPUPPET, I'm not being rude, there is no excuse for removing my comments twice, also as I have stated to you repeatedly, read what you are being told, I commented on the Google hits 2 comments ago. Since you missed it here they are again . I'm trying to remain civil here but this is getting old very very quickly. Ridernyc (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This book fails Notability (books). The article contains several sources, none of which establish notability: 1. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4761054/Cite – this entry in a catalog does not establish notability. 2. http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/article/composer-notes-january-2010 – a one-sentence mention does not constitute the "significant coverage" that is required by the general notability guideline. 3. http://www.amazon.com/Symbolic-Dimension-Exploration-Compositional-Process/dp/3838308662 – Amazon.com is not a reliable source that establishes notability because this page is one of many in the directories of this book-selling website. 4. http://netnewmusic.net/profile/KatiaTiutiunnik3/ – Self-published blogs do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ridernyc. Could you give me the chance to find some other articles on the book and perhaps change the references?? I know some are going to be published soon. I will refrain from deleting any entries. I did that in error so please, once again, accept my apologies. (GoldbergEva (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Dear Cunard: I have just changed one of the references. Please give me the chance to find some more articles in the book. I just Googled it and over 350 hits resulted. Thank you for your understanding. (GoldbergEva (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC))


 * The source you added discusses the author, not the book. In order for this article to be kept, there must be at least two independent reliable sources that provide significant (at least several paragraphs) coverage about The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process. Reliable sources include newspaper and magazine articles, but not self-published blogs that have received no fact-checking or editorial control. Cunard (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback. I'll do my best to find some articles regarding this book. If I do not succeed, I will wait until there are more independent sources pertaining to this book (it has only just been released!!!) and then resubmit a revised version of this article. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. (GoldbergEva (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. In lieu of deletion, perhaps a merge/redirect to Katia Tiutiunnik would be the best course of action here. When the book becomes notable, the redirect can be undone and the information restored. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence at all of notability. Article was created and largely edited by a single purpose account with no editing away from the topic of Katia Tiutiunnik. LivingMuse is also a single purpose account, editing only about Katia Tiutiunnik, and the two are stated to be colleagues of one another. Is there perhaps a conflict of interest involved? I have also found off-wiki reasons for thinking there may be. (Incidentally examination of the two editors' contribution history convinces me that they are genuinely two different people, and there is no sockpuppet involved.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind as to instruct me as to how to merge this page with Katia Tiutiunnik's one?? I know there are going to be quite a few publications about this book in the next six months so please forgive me for attempting to contribute to an article on the book before it became notable. No one should have written any article about it at this stage. Thank you. (LivingMuse (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
 * To do a merge, you can move the content in this article to Katia Tiutiunnik. Cunard (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this Cunard. I just tagged the article for possible merging. However, I just noticed that the book is already mentioned briefly on the page Katia Tiutiunnik, hence, any merge would require some editing. When the book becomes notable according to Wikipedia standards (and I know, as a fact, that publications on it should be released in the next 6 months or so) I'll resubmit the article. I'm really sorry for any inconvenience I and/or my colleagues may have caused.(LivingMuse (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

I have redirected the page since the authors article already covers the book. Ridernyc (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. Once again, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. (LivingMuse (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
 * please make sure you have multiple mentions in reliable sources that have no relation to you or the author before you attempt to recreate the page. 06:40, 10 February 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.