Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Terzibaschitsch

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. ✗plicit 03:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Terzibaschitsch

[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)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. –Ploni (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Ploni (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator. Your justification is quite brief... In the context of the volume of hits in Google News, Google books etc, and the large number of books she's clearly written, don't you think she's got a good shot at WP:CREATIVE? CT55555 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. For me Google News yields no hits, and the Google Books results are almost exclusively her own works. She's published a fair number of books, but I haven't been able to find significant coverage elsewhere. I stand to be corrected, though! –Ploni (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 By "books", do you mean her compositions? Those wouldn't fall under WP:NBOOK. The rule of thumb would be WP:COMPOSER instead. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not certain, there was so many, they looked like musical textbooks, they could have been compositions, but I didn't translate, and assumed the nom had looked into this, hence my question. My first impressions (not verified) were that she created a significant body of work. CT55555 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 I don't think they're textbooks exactly, so much as collections of songs to learn piano from. I know that sounds like a textbook when I write it out in a sentence, but I think anyone who's ever taken lessons for a popular instrument like piano or violin is familiar with the kind of book I mean. "Christmas Songs for Piano Beginners" kind of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I don't disagree. My question was a genuine open question, I wasn't implying any answer. I think WP:COMPOSER seems better than my suggestion and if I find the time, I'll try to assess against that. CT55555 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 Don't worry, I understood it as a genuine open question. Sorry if I implied otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. She does not appear to pass WP:COMPOSER in any case. It seems she's published almost only music textbooks or exam pieces, and I can't find evidence of her textbooks being particularly influential, or of any notable compositions. –Ploni (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ok, I'm not seeing a reasonable pass of WP:GNG or anything else here, but I wouldn't rule it out, so if someone finds something substantial, please ping me. This is a useful page to get a sense of her work: [1]. Basically, she is a piano teacher who publishes volumes of her compositions for the sake of students who are learning to play piano. I think she has a "significant body of work" in the sense that it is large, but it's not the kind of work that gets reviewed or discussed in ways that lend themselves to writing an encyclopedia article, and I don't believe that it is of historical significance either. It's not WP:COMPOSER-meeting stuff. As for google and news hits, I'm finding quite a few hits about her work being performed by school bands and the like, but nothing that's in-depth discussion of her or her work (those articles are about the school's music programs). We can add some sources to this unsourced article, but there is very little we can say with WP:RS other than a sentence or two about how she is a piano teacher whose compositions are used in schools - that is, we can't really say anything about her or her work. So no grounds for an article. -- asilvering (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on the de-wiki context: her article there went to deletion discussion in 2008, was deleted, then overturned. There's also quite a bit of drama on the talk page about claims that were in the article that Terzibaschitsch apparently was unhappy with and whether they came from adequate sourcing (those claims are not in the current en-wiki article). German wikipedia has very different inclusion guidelines than en-wiki's (to simplify: en-wiki's are based on whether sources exist, where de-wiki's are often based on factual criteria like "companies with n employees are notable" and "authors with more than x published non-fiction books are notable"), and in general I wouldn't look to a deletion discussion from 14 years ago for precedent. The main argument in favour of keeping the article on de-wiki was "has lots of non-fiction books"; also mention of how her work is used in many (elementary) schools. I don't think any of this is helpful for our discussion here; I simply bring it up to pre-empt the inevitable "but did you look at the de-wiki article" question. -- asilvering (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication it meets MUSICBIO and no adequate citations provided. Samanthany (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2022 (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.