Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Heim

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Heim[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. found no real coverage and hardly any article links to this. LibStar (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article was under-resourced but the subject is notable per WP:MUSICBIO#1, #9 and #12.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to form an opinion but am leaning to the delete side. @Shaidar cuebiyar: Can you list which references you are relying on for #1, #9, and #12 please. Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few of them that are in the article, but specifically: the current refs 1&3, 6&7. Additionally consider the following items: 1, 2, and 3.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is a biography that was supplied by the article's subject, per the note at the reference "Biography provided by the composer — current to March 2007". As such it's a primary source. Reference 3 is actually broken. You need to go to reference 1 to find the list. Reference 6 lists the subject as a guest, but provides very little else. Reference 7 is the detail for reference 6. Together they actually provide only one reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1&3 are provided by an independent body and the catalogue shows that the subject has performed/composed numerous works. Refs 6&7 show that he was the subject of a national radio programme (yes, he was a guest on it!) which described his research on dementia and baroque music.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is still very clearly a primary source, per the note on the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources, some for the baroque study and some on additional content on his work as a theatre director.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm yet to form an opinion but some of the references in the article don't seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, regardless of what WP:MUSICBIO might say. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to have a good amount of references, and Mr. Helm has been talked about in 3rd party sources. I would say that we should leave it alone, or try to improve it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2017 (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.