Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Kostka

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. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kostka[edit]

[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)

Virtually no coverage—let alone substantial coverage—in reliable secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. The book he co-authored seems more notable, with a few reviews covering it, but such notability doesn't seem to extend to Kostka himself. Brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory#Is this theorist really notable enough for WP? and the conclusion there seems to have been aligned with mine. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The factual assessment is insufficient in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory#Is this theorist really notable enough for WP? and the conclusion there seems to have been aligned with mine. Aza24 Kostka was the primary author (27 of 30 chapters) of the Tonal Harmony book, which has been best-selling collegiate theory textbook since the 1990s. Kostka pioneered the development of courses in computer applications in music at both the Eastman School of Music and The University of Texas. Kostka received numerous teaching awards, was president of the Texas Society for Music Theory, has chaired committees for SMT and been recognized by relevant professional organizations. Dash Incredible (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dash Incredible, you should note that the "factual assessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory#Is this theorist really notable enough for WP?" was not the core of my rationale. Indeed the first guideline I cited was WP:GNG; I cannot find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and not passing mentions. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aza24 (talk) Thanks for explanation. Worth noting is that the Tonal Harmony book is by far the more recognized and influential publication. Apologize if I was unclear. I will obtain additional references and information to substantiate the article.Dash Incredible (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I'm delaying my !vote for the time being. While he seems to fail GNG and most criteria of NPROF, I'm wondering whether his book (Materials and techniques of twentieth-century music) gets him over the line for Criterion No. 1. 616 GS citations seems like a lot for a low-citation field. Here are a few examples of other contemporary music theorists with WP articles: Edward Aldwell (highest citation count: 733), Allen Forte (highest citation count: 2082), Roland C. Jordan (highest citation count: 549), Edward T. Cone (highest citation count: 908). Many in the "American music theorists" category had substantially worse numbers. My survey of the category makes me think that his book is enough to satisfy the criterion with reference to his sub-discipline. I'm going to look for some reviews to perhaps substantiate this impression. (It is only co-authored, on the other hand; perhaps the Tonal Harmony book could help as well.) Modussiccandi (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm linking two reviews of his Materials and techniques of twentieth-century music ([1] and [2]). I'm also now !voting to keep because of the reviews needed to satisfy WP:AUTHOR.) Modussiccandi (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real indication of importance. Does not meet NPROF Salimfadhley (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~Weak Keep I think the deciding factor for me is that while the book is unquestionably notable, it's not necessarily the sort of research that WP:NACADEMIC guideline 1 is envisioning. Forte's not a good comparison here - his academic research influenced hundreds of subsequent scholars. Counting citations to an introductory textbook is a weird case; it doesn't necessarily indicate the same level of notability that a corresponding number of citations to a research paper would. You could make the argument that by choosing the arrangement and emphasis of the materials in the textbook Kostka had a major influence - but that just tells me that the book needs an article, not the author. PianoDan (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had not considered WP:AUTHOR. I still think he fails WP:PROF, but I think he DOES pass under the author metric, so I'm changing my vote. PianoDan (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Deleting this article would deprive Wikipedia readers of some information about an author who is cited in almost 50 Wikipedia articles and widely outside Wikipedia, including the MGG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that I am unable to find any sources that verify almost any of the career "information about [the] author", meaning it would likely be removed in its near-entirety if this article is deleted. Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also worth noting that a number reviews and other mentions refer to him as "Stephen" or "Steven": Google search example. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- When you mentioned an MGG citation, I went looking in the online version. To be clear, Kostka doesn't have an ENTRY in the MGG. (at least, not that I can find in the online version) Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs), can you add whatever cite you're looking at to the article if it seems to fit? That would certainly improve verifiability of information that would otherwise need to be removed as unsourced. PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, he doesn't have an entry in MGG, but his Materials and Techniques is cited in "Serielle Musik" there. His Bibliography of Computer Applications in Music is cited in Grove in "Computers and music" and "Bibliography of American music". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - A source about his education, which was mentioned above as missing, have now been added. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think we have enough book reviews for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. under wp:prof a author of what the workgroup tells us is a mjor textbook. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 5 December 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.