Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Friedrich Görner

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 redirect to Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig. Consensus is to redirect somewhere. Editors can still change the redirect target as desired. Sandstein 22:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Friedrich Görner

[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)

PROD was declined. A search provides no evidence of notability and he does not inherit such from a notable student or parent. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been been discussing this with Gerda Arendt but she's busy and so I don't want to disturb her again today. The subject is associated with more than one other article such as Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig, List of organists, Johann Gottlieb Görner and St. Thomas Church, Leipzig. We might merge to one of these but what's the point? Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no pressure on the the number of pages and we should not delete pages purely for the sake of it. See also WP:ATD and WP:ZEAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have considered a redirect (there's nothing to merge), but once a PROD is declined that's usually not successful either. Not paper doesn't mean we need to be a directory of everyone who ever lived. Merging, IMO, generally helps to find all the information in one place, not spun out all over. I know there's no requirement to provide information when dePRODing, but the above info would be helpful on the talk page IMO or DePRODding with a note saying explanation TK StarM 16:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some refs and amended page. He was the organist at St. Thomas Church, Leipzig. He is in many books about Mozart, however those that you can sample are just mentions. Probably notable at the time, due to his position at a very famous church, but as Andrew said probably in historic books.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of his life dates, literally everything we know about him (and everything I've been able to find) is also said in Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig. I'd suggest to redirect there until we find something more to say. —Kusma (t·c) 21:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mozart's Berlin journey#Leipzig. That says all we can say of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:NOTPAPER then says "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies," so enough of the nonsense. We delete, merge, or redirect pages when they fail to meet notability requirement. You ideological opposition to the concept of deletion does not void this, and you should take that up at WT:AFD rather than selectively quoting things. A Google Books search finds this which shows that (a) the article is wrong, Doles was a pupil of Bach, not Görner, and (b) that on one single day he helped Mozart play the organ at St. Thomas Church. This is not substantive coverage warranting an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of organists. Does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Even if you gather up all the mentions it doesn't meet BASIC, and even if it barely did, this does not mean there has to be a stand alone article. The keep voting above is all centered around sources must exist without any evidence they do, or trying to make this notable by inheritance, neither of which is valid reasoning for keeping an article. Unless someone shows sources with SIGCOV, this should be redirected. No objection if a different redirect target develops consensus. // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a better consensus on a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:07, 19 March 2021 (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.