Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah K

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There are no plausible counterarguments that this passes MUSICBIO #5. As there is enough verifiable material to create a sufficiently contextual article, it is not shown how deleting this article about a likely notable subject would improve the encyclopedia. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah K

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Noah K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly does not meet any of items 2-12. I examined all the references in the article, and did my own searching, to see if he meets item 1 (subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works...).

What I found was short reviews of album releases, routine biographical blurbs from places selling his recordings, and self-published or self-authored material. Many of these are in WP:RS, but do not meet the non-trivial and/or independent requirements.

My searching included, in addition to Google, New York City newspapers which might cover local talent. I searched NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Village Voice, and DNA Info. All I could find is another Noah Kaplan who is a real estate agent.

The primary author of this article is a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI, and possibly WP:UPE. Article was originally in draft space, then moved to mainspace by the author, bypassing the review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Smith:. First of all, he passes WP:MUSICBIO #10 since he composed and performed music in Once and Again. That line was recently removed from the article because it cited IMDb, but should be returned with the episode of the show itself ("Chance of a Lifetime") as the source, since K appeared as himself in the show performing his music on saxophone. In addition, K passes WP:MUSICBIO #5. The Noah Kaplan Quartet has two albums on HatHut Records, one of the most important jazz labels in the history of jazz and classical music (take a look at its roster). It is distributed in the US by Naxos of America, which is major distribution. Further, WP:MUSICBIO #1 is met through reviews in Downbeat, the preeminent magazine in Jazz. Multiple in depth reviews of K's work in All About Jazz (another major Jazz outlet) are full of biographical details. Not to mention the WNYC feature on Soundcheck, his music on NPR's All Things Considered, interviews with major music promoters (Annie O) and articles in New Music Box. The book he edited (Manual of Quarter-Tone Harmony- WorldCat source is cited) is in many leading university libraries across the country and in Europe and New Zealand. AllMusic is another source used in almost all music biographical articles to substantiate album info etc. Please stop accusing me of WP:UPE I've told you multiple times that I was not paid in any way to write this article. The article is neutral, non-promotional and well sourced by independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Please remove the deletion tag. Artaria195 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO, this is non-notable Skirts89 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skirts89: Aren’t you supposed to provide support and evidence for your assertion in this forum? How exactly does he not meet WP: MUSICBIO #5, #1 and #10? Artaria195 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was asked to wade in by the article's creator. My main area of editing is jazz. Noah K has had two albums released by Hathut Records. As the Hathut article states, that label has existed for decades and has released albums by lots of well-known jazz musicians. Noah K therefore meets criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." This is sufficient in itself for the article to be kept. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added some more sourced material. He's not exactly a major figure, but there's plenty of material about him out there. EddieHugh (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know anything about Noah K. But I looked at the article and I asked the question we are all supposed to ask about articles proposed for deletion. Not: Do I like him, is he any good, is he important, or will his name go down in history. But: Are there enough sources to support an article of substance? The answer is yes. Not potential sources in the future, mind you, not something buried that someone someday might find, but sources that exist in the article here and now. The answer is yes. If you want examples of jazz articles that have much less content and few or no sources, see the Jazz Cleanup Listing here. Over five thousand articles need work and some of them aren't even jazz. The backlog goes back eleven years.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've gone through the same review of the sources and he does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I considered rejecting the article in draftspace but considering I was a participant in a related AfD I sent it through to the 'keeper, only for the article creator to bypass AfC completely. There's also clearly canvassing happening here. SportingFlyer talk 23:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? He has 2 albums released by an important independent label, thereby meeting #5. Do you dispute this? If so, please explain in what way(s). If not, then please change your "delete". EddieHugh (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why that label meets #5? I did some research and they appear to be a very niche label, without much discussion in independent secondary sources, in spite of what looks like a long list of releases. SportingFlyer talk 00:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. #5 requires a label to have "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This one was formed in 1974 and its roster can be seen at Hathut Records. Its roster includes many of the key people of free jazz, such as Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang and Anthony Braxton. I appreciate that this is not exactly mainstream, chart-topping stuff, but these musicians are pivotal in this particular field. Anyway, don't just take my word about the label being important, you can read the Grove entry here (or at least, if a non-subscriber, enough to get the point, given that this is a key reference work for music). EddieHugh (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through its discography, it still doesn't appear to me to be a label which would automatically grant someone notability, especially in their more recent releases. SportingFlyer talk 02:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"a label which would automatically grant someone notability" is not a criterion, either for a musician's notability or a record label's. In fact, it's directly contradicted by the actual criterion (#5), which requires at lease 2 releases, making 'automatic notability' impossible. I've quoted the actual criterion (#5, the one that we are obliged to follow) above twice; Hathut meets it, so Noah K does too. (As an aside, go to the list of recent releases... the 4 most recent are all by people/ensembles that have Wikipedia articles.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the actual criterion: "many of whom are independently notable". How many is "many"? Here's a list from the first four tables at Wikipedia's Hathut page (covering a lot less than half of their listed discography): Joe McPhee, Steve Lacy, Baikida Carroll, Phillip Wilson, David Murray, David S. Ware, Irène Schweizer, Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang, Dave Burrell, Max Roach, Anthony Braxton, Jerome Cooper, Léon Francioli, Radu Malfatti, Archie Shepp, Burton Greene, Alan Silva, Sun Ra, Irene Aebi, Steve Potts, Sunny Murray, Pierre Favre, Michel Portal, Mal Waldron, Karen Borca, Brion Gysin, Lauren Newton, Denis Charles, Donald Knaack, Vienna Art Orchestra, Tony Coe, Tony Oxley, Mike Westbrook, Rova Saxophone Quartet, Werner Lüdi, Pauline Oliveros, Fritz Hauser, Vyacheslav Ganelin, Marianne Schroeder, John Zorn, Franz Koglmann. Is that enough for "many"? If anyone would like a complete list from the same page, please let me know, but 43 is enough for me. EddieHugh (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: As the article's original creator I've been staying out of the conversation for a while to see what the consensus is. But, since it has been relisted, I'm curious if you are willing to change your delete vote given that K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5. If not, can you and other editors who've voted delete please explain your reasoning in light of the thorough explanation provided for how HatHut and K meet #5 as well as the updated sources in the article including the Irish Times? I appreciate your thoughtful and good faith consideration, Artaria195 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 14:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I say this respectfully and in good faith, but having watched this process play out through your constant canvassing/trying to draw users back into discussion on the two articles you actually care about/refusal to accept other users disagree with you on the notability of your WP:SPA topics, I'm convinced you're WP:NOTHERE, and I don't care to comment on the articles you're pushing any further. Please leave me alone going forward, and good luck. SportingFlyer talk 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I waited until after the article was relisted, and when no one posted any further opinions, I asked the nominator and editors who had simply voted "delete per nom" to reconsider in light of the thorough discussion of WP:MUSICBIO #5, the revisions and the source additions. According to WP:PERNOM, "delete per nom" is an "argument to avoid in deletion discussion" as " AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes." More generally, this discussion should be about the article, not an attack on me personally. I find it frustrating that there has been a serious and good faith effort to address RoySmith's initial objections through a discussion of how K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5, the addition of sources to the article and substantial revisions. I'm a little confused as to why amongst the deletion votes there is a refusal to reconsider or explain the objections when I and others have acted in good faith to address them. The notability of K is no longer an issue here. Artaria195 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician may be notable if at least one of the criteria are met. Put another way: even assuming that one of the criteria on the list is met, notability is not automatically granted to the subject. Wikipedia's general notability guideline provides that a topic is presumed notable if the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article do not meet this threshold. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoi: according to general notability guideline "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Are you saying that the sources don't contain this? If so, please read the DownBeat articles, NYC Jazz Record articles and All About Jazz articles as a starting place. None of these are "trivial mentions" and these are three of the most influential jazz publications, with DownBeat being the most influential in the field (akin to Rolling Stone for rock, you can read about that here). Further, K had a cover story length feature article in a Greek Jazz Magazine that is cited. There are plenty more sources still. Is that not enough to meet guideline #1? In addition, he clearly meets #5 beyond any further discussion and meets #10. The fact that he clearly meets #5 puts the onus on those voting to "delete" to really prove how he can meet the guideline, yet still not be notable. That means doing the research necessary to evaluate the quality of the sources if jazz and other niche music isn't an area of expertise. Two expert editors from WikiProject Jazz, who have edited many articles on jazz musicians and deleted many too, have both voted to keep the article based on their evaluations. Artaria195 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've done some more research and found articles in All About Jazz Italy, Italy's main jazz magazine, about K as well. I've added a citation for the most recent one to the article. The multiple articles in All About Jazz Italy plus the Jazz and Tzaz article show significant coverage in reliable international publications. Earlier this year he was also featured in All About Jazz Italy's column "What I'm listening to Now" here which though not a fully independent source itself, is further proof that he is considered notable by All About Jazz Italy. Additionally, according to K's website, he has been written about in The Wire, Dusted Magazine and a several online blogs and magazines. These are more independent reliable sources that can be included if one is inclined. All this to say that there are more than enough sources available that easily meet the general notability guideline to prevent this article from being deleted. Artaria195 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noah_K&oldid=872362204"