Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Kamien

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 is no consensus to delete, and the two statements in support of deletion were made prior to the reviews being added.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kamien[edit]

Non-notable guy who wrote a non-notable textbook. Probably pure spam, or maybe a student of his wrote it. SolidPlaid 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete Amazon shows this one book is certainly in existence and Google returns hits for the author as well, however all related to this book. WP:NB Applies here. The book is not noteworthy by those criteria and the author, seemingly having only authored this one book (and multimedia related to it) would therefore inheret a lack of notability. Pedro | Chat 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 2 questions at hand here: the notability of the book, and the notability of the author. The book would be notable if it were "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate", providing that reliable source can be found to assert this notability (per WP:NB). However, I can't find any reliable sources to make such an assertion (the author/publisher's own writing being discounted per WP:SPS). The book is therefore not notable enough for inclusion, and since this is the author's only claim-to-fame, neither is he. —gorgan_almighty 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:PROF - he's a tenured professor, at a leading public college (CUNY Queens College), whose textbook is in its 8th edition. Bearian 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are on the order of 350,000 professors in the US alone. I don't think being tenured and putting out a book passes WP:PROF. SolidPlaid 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He seems to have written a number of other things as well. "In addition to Music: An Appreciation, Dr. Kamien was the editor of The Norton Scores and on of the co-authors of A New Approach to Keyboard Harmony. He has also written articles and reviews for journals including Music Forum, Beethoven Forum, Musical Quarterly, Journal of Music Theory, and Journal of the American Musicological Society." --summary this is from his publisher's site, & I find a good deal on google & google scholar to back it up; it will take me a while to transcribe it all.

And most important, apparently "In 1983, he was appointed to the Zubin Mehta Chair of Musicology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem." Queens College is a good undergraduate college--but Hebrew University is a major university of international repute, and the holder of a named chair there is very highly notable. --I dont think the nom. even tried to look; Inadequate article, notable guy, but the nom., was judging on the basis of the article alone.

As it should be. Notable things are sparsely distributed in small article space. SolidPlaid 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very few textbooks reach an 8th edition. As for widespread use, I find [1] , [2]. [3], [4] , [5] -- just as a start, first few google pages out of hundreds. . I don't think either the nom or the people commenting above tried to look for this aspect either.,

He's also a performer: I see a concert with Murray Perahia, [6] , and that he's a 1951 winner of the Concert Artists Guild competition [7]

and--to show the care--I notice no attempt was made to list this at any relevant workgroup, which might get some more expert views on whether this is notable. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the Norton Scores are notable & the editorship of the series highly important.

and, as my final comment, on the 6th of several hundred pages of ghits, I find Wikipedia:Deletion today DGG (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I respect that several examples of this book's use have been presented, but there is still an issue of reliable secondary sources. None of these links qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also, we are talking about the author's notability, not the book's notability. —gorgan_almighty 08:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the selection of the books by other faculty is the evidence of third party recognition. Professors do not get in the news very much, but they are significant in their own fields nonetheless. DGG (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are still required to assert notability. Even WP:PROF agrees with this. Secondary sources don't have to be news articles, but they must give the subject specific in-depth coverage. A reading list, or anything else that notes a books usage, can't do this. —gorgan_almighty 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in this respect the secondary sources are the listings by the other universities--we do not need to find a source that says that the universities have adopted it. With respect to the notability of the books, the reviews are the secondary sources. I added a sampling of the reviews. I think this is enough to meet any concept of sourcing. DGG (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the book is in the 8th edition, it is reasonably well used. That seems to pass the PROF reqs.Mbisanz 01:44, 21 September 2007 (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.