Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred R. Stevenson

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. ST47 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred R. Stevenson

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography (see sole author) that fails to summon up a remotely convincing amount of in-depth references. I guess it's a good illustration of the pitfalls of WP:AUTOBIO in action. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal promotion without the base of reliable sources coverage. RS is also lacking in the German Wikipedia version which is also an autobio, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied from user's talk page) Hi, why should this article to be deleted? I wrote it first in german with some help from the mentoring program and it was highly appreciated.

I translated and edited it, made sure to follow the common rules. I have no idea what I did wrong.

Thanks, Alfred R. Stevenson (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfred R. Stevenson, the issue is not content or translation (both of which are fine for this type of article); the issue is the lack of independent sources that cover you, personally, at some length and detail. This might include newspaper or magazine articles, online publications, discussions in books etc., all of which - and this is the important part - should not be written by bodies connected to you; i.e., not your employer, academic institution, or your own webpage. At bottom, what we need to assess is whether you are notable enough that people are writing about you, and such sources are required to demonstrate it. I don't see this kind of sources in the article, and I couldn't find them on the web either. Since I assume that you would be aware of any high-quality material that has been published about you, and have not made use of it, this suggests that it doesn't exist. - The difficulties of assessing your own notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) are one of the reasons why Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing about themselves. I'm somewhat surprised that the German WP was happy to publish the article without demur; their criteria aren't that different from ours... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Yup, on checking previous commentary on deWiki about the German draft [1], I can't quite follow the reasoning of editor Tkarcher - they correctly identify a lack of independent, in-depth sourcing, but then sign off on a version that is lacking any. Ich fürchte, das sieht noch nicht gut genug aus :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Technically, we can delete this article merely because it is an autobiography; a newbie 15 years ago could get away with this argument, but in 2019, it's not to be taken seriously. Looking further, conductors are not automatically notable. I can't see anything, not even one factor, to show notability under that guideline. Looking more broadly, there is a complete lack of significant coverage about this subject. We are an American charity, not a web host for German conductors. The President of the United States was just fined $2,000,000 for doing what the subject of this page has done, which is self-dealing. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have rules against autobiographies. We need to diligently remove them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2019 (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.