Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Nanes

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nanes

[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)

This article has had a notability tag for ten years, and I am honestly on the fence about whether or not this subject meet's wikipedia's notability requirements. Mr. Nanes has been described as an amateur pianist and composer, but it's clear he had professional ambitions and did have some professional success (which asks the question whether he can truly be called an amateur?). I am taking this here in order to get a wider opinion, and put the matter to rest. Please don't consider my nomination as a delete but as an uncertain.

Nanes does have a discography with some important ensembles (the London Symphony Orchestra and the Moscow Symphony), but it's almost certain that these recording were paid for by Mr. Nanes himself and released on his own record label. These recordings, however, are available commercially on Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, etc. His work was programmed by the Pacific Symphony in 1985 as a part of their season which is a professional achievement, and did receive a very brief mention in this review: Chris Pasles (April 7, 1986). "Music Review: Clark Leads Symphony In Taut, Lean Program". Los Angeles Times.. He also attracted enough attention to have his work reviewed by The New York Times music critic, even if the review was bad. He also presented and performed his work at the Kharkiv Festival in the Ukraine with the Kharkiv Festival Orchestra, which apparently was filmed and broadcast on public television in Kentucky [1]. This bio indicates that their may be other professional achievements that may make him notable. The issue here, is that it's difficult to parse out where self puffery has inflated his achievements to appear better then they really are, and where legitimate professional achievements can truly be verified. 4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Moscow Sym and London Sym are orchestras for hire, as opposed to London Phil for example.--Lute88 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it's perhaps a bit by the by, but what, Lute88, are you proposing is the difference in the for hire status between the London Symphony Orchestra and what I assume you mean to be the London Philharmonic Orchestra? If this difference is meant to help your argument, I'm really sorry but I am not getting it. Could you please explain the orchestras for hire bit and how it works in informing this discussion? Thanks! DBaK (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont understand. If you don't want this considered for deletion why bring it to the AfD board? Couldn't you have merely initiated your question on the article's talk page? ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did initiate a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Richard Nanes. Consensus there seems to be leaning towards deletion (although not unanimously) which is why I brought it here. I have not yet formulated a definite opinion one way or another myself. I trust the AFD process to come to the right conclusion, and I do want it to be considered for deletion by the community since it's had a notability tag for a decade. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs editing for neutrality and investigation into whether there were paid for collaborations but the dedicated review in the New York Times is a sign of notability and the fact that it is a bad review at least proves that it is independent critical assessment, also having 899 library holdings indicates there should be more reviews and coverage offline if not online, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~a) procedural, because the nominator doesn't support deletion; b)~~ Atlantic306's arguments. I also notice that the article has been twice severely pruned; some material might be rescued from earlier versions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: I feel your "procedural" point here is a little unfair to the nominator. They were clearly considerably uncertain about whether this article met the community standards for inclusion under the GNG and nominated it—after being recommended to do so by several people, myself included—in order to let the wider community assess the issue. This is actually the correct approach: what matters isn't any one person's subjective assessment (inluding the nominator's), but the community's consensus based on policy factors. There is absolutely no reason why the nominator should be expected to have reached a conclusion before nominating: it is sufficient that there is any level of uncertainty about the conclusion and how policy applies. That's why we have AfD after all. --Xover (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now stricken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going for Keep. In a just world, assuming that all the assessments I find of Nanes's compositions are accurate (I haven't heard his work myself), Nanes would not have garnered the coverage in the New York Times and L.A. Times; but garner it he did. Given that he's drawn enough attention to himself to get that coverage -- undeserved as it may be -- it seems to me that he has successfully pushed himself into notability, if not respectability. In sum, he perhaps ought not to be notable, but he appears to be notable nonetheless, and therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article.

I would also like to add a note of approval for 4meter4's use of AFD here. I think Wikipedia, and AFD in particular, would be a far better place if one can explore things like whether an article should be deleted or kept without having to stake out a position and entrench themselves into arguing for or against it, instead searching for a resolution on a questionable issue without having to take a stand on it. An unbiased good-faith exploration of an issue like this should be encouraged. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm sure the article could be improved, but I think it's pretty good actually. It gives a fair assessment, supported by references, of the quality of Nanes' music ("inept", basically); and it is a good article to have in WP because there will be people who run across his name, and wonder who he was. WP will tell them, which is as it should be. (If this were an "Encyclopedia of Musicians", then there is a good argument for not including him, because he was not a "significant musician", musically speaking, but WP is not such.) See also my comments on the article talk page. I very much agree that it is good to have a discussion like this -- the "Notability questioned" tag can be removed as resolved. And I applaud Michale Bednarek for retracting his earlier comment. And a happy First of September to all. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:SNOW. In hearing others comments, and re-reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music), I have to conclude that there is enough evidence to support criteria 1 with significant reviews in two notable newspapers. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable composers of bad music are still notable. In fact, he was notably inept and an amateur. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 3 September 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.