Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Novgorodsky

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete, default to keep. What a long AFD discussion. Neil ム 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Novgorodsky[edit]

Dmitri Novgorodsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The assertion of notability here is that he is "the first Russian-Soviet Musician to receive a Doctoral Degree from Yale." He has performed in many venues, but not necessarily as a headliner. "Extraordinary Abilities in the Arts" U.S. permanent residence indicates that he has a Green Card, but the criteria for that type of Green Card approval is not at all the same as Wikipedia's criteria for notability, Won some type of Web contest. In short, he's an assistant professor. We can't keep him just for being handsome. Brought here for discussion. OfficeGirl 11:00, 13 September 2007

*The multiple lengthy comments from the creator have made the consensus difficult to follow, so I have taken the liberty of reformatting the page to move the nonvotes to a separate section from the discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FisherQueen, and I regret having commented at such length. Bazaryakov 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


unvotes to keep or delete[edit]

  • Weak keep. It appears that the subject should be evaluated for notability as a musician (see WP:MUSIC) rather than as a professor. I would recommend that the article be revised to focus on his performance and recording history, rather than his academic achievements. Being the first person of a particular nationality to earn a degree in a particular instrument at a particular university should not be the focus of his article, since there are so many possible combinations of nationalities, instruments, and universities. --Metropolitan90 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO guidlines; I need to see evidence of recodings, reviews, concerts before I would consider otherwise. However, this guy could be notable in Russia, and where his notability may be covered by a wide range of Russian sourcs; in which case, I am sure his article in Russian Wikipedia will be sufficient for the time being. --Gavin Collins 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he is notable in Russia, he is notable here--our coverage is world-wide as long as people think the subject is important enough to do the work of writing about them in English. Our use of sources is similar--any language will do (translated if necessary to show the essence). DGG (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I made some technical corrections to the formatting. Yes, WP, is in fact prejudiced against non-tenured professors, of which I am a member of that class of persons. And yes, I am somewhat on an expert of modern classical music. Bearian 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been the subject of multiple nontrivial published sources which meets WP:Music. Many refs are trivial but many are not; namely [1], [2], [3]. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network. ♫ Cricket02 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still not convinced. The Kazakh and Russian competitions sound like they might be major competitions but there's precious little on the Internet about them. The radio broadcasts were on a Wisconsin network, not across a national network. The three refs you've listed as examples are a press release, a symphony calendar listing and an unbylined "Special to the Herald" (read: info provided by the orchestra to the small/mid-sized town paper and printed verbatim) recap of his bio. These 3 examples are all promotional. They're not from a disinterested perspective. Canuckle 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but as a musician; clearly not notable as a professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Discussion with creator[edit]

  • Dear Sir/Madam,

Russian Piano school is one of the most prominent in the world, and Moscow Tchaikovsky Conservatory is the primary musical institution in the world. Wikipedia has multiple articles about Russian-Soviet musicians who have contributed to the art of piano playing: none of them have achieved a higher scholarly achievement than Mr. Novgorodsky, who is both an alumnus of Tchaikovsky Conservatory and holds the Doctor of Musical Arts Degree from Yale School of Music. Not only is he the first musician to have ever attained that level but he is also the only person in the world to have both degrees at the moment. The Yale Doctoral Degree is given only to the best in their field, and no Russian-born and Soviet-trained musicians in history have so far received that honor. The US Immigration criteria for "Extraordinary Abilities in the Arts" category approval involves corroborating that the applicant has "risen to the top in his/her field of endeavor", which would have to fall into the category of special notability. If the criteria is not met, this special immigration status isn't conferred. I am quoting form the "Extraordinary Abilities in the Arts" description: The fact that Dmitri Novgorodsky is presently an Assistant Professor of Piano doesn't take away from his achievements. The academic hierarchy involves moving from the entry level to the full professor rank, and perhaps at some point in the future he will attain that academic distinction as well - but that alone wouldn't be the reason for including him in Wikipedia: we have thousands of full professors who haven't received Mr. Novgorodsky's distinctions. The headliner can be changed, if this will suit the Wikipedia format better.

Here are the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion which the article meets:

1) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. 2) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition ( 3) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field 4) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter,

Respectfully,


Bazaryakov

COMMENT Well, this discussion has been created so that Wikipedians who know the world of music can evaluate your claims, Bazaryakov. But I am an immigration lawyer and I have worked with Outstanding Ability immigrants to get their cases approved-- and they are APPROVED, but they are not suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. I assure you it is a different standard than Wikipedia uses. I have a real concern here: if he is so much more accomplished than anyone else, why is he only an assistant professor? it just doesn't match up. That is why this discussion is here, so that the whole community has a chance to discuss.OfficeGirl 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear OfficeGirl,

"The legal term ‘extraordinary ability’ seeks to identify those persons who have reached the very top of their professions as compared to their peers". (see the category's guidelines in the link http://www.breakthroughusa.co.uk/artists-visa-guide/). Although the article's main premise is not to establish that the approval under the "Extraordinary Abilities in The Arts" immigration category qualifies the recipient of that immigrational status for inclusion in Wikipedia, this fact in Mr. Novgorodsky's biography emphasizes that he became the first and the only Russian-Soviet musician to earn the Yale Doctoral Degree in Piano Performance BASED ON THOSE EXTRAORDINARY ABILITIES (which has been recognized and approved by the US immigration authorities as well). I would also like to draw your attention, once again, to the fact that Mr. Novgorodsky's achievements fall into at least 4 Wikipedia eligibility categories above. The ONLY one in the world is an achievement worthy of being known by the Wikipedia community and users, isn't it?

Going on to your concerns about "assistant professor" as an academic status/rank. I am sure you are well-versed enough in the academic distinctions to be aware that "assistant professor" is an entry-level rank for people who started teaching not more than 6-7 years ago. After that period, they are evaluated for tenure and, once approved, are automatically promoted into an "Associate Professor" rank. As you can see from the biography, Mr. Novgorodsky has dedicated his artistic career to multiple performances around the world, and has started his teaching career in the academia not a very long time ago. If Dmitri Novgorodsky were an associate or a full professor at this juncture, that wouldn't qualify him for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor will that fact alone do so when, in due time, he is promoted to an Associate and then to the Full Professor rank. The article cites his current university position merely as information on his present academic occupation, "A Piano Faculty" (by the way, it doesn't mention the "assistant professor" status, you are the one bringing that information into equation). However, I hope you would agree that being an Assistant Professor doesn't clash with the achievement of being the first and the only Russian and Soviet musician in the world to hold the Doctoral Degree in Piano Performance from Yale. Incidentally, Yale School of Music is the only Ivy League school which awards Doctorates in instrumental musical performance - Harvard University doesn't confer performance degrees. If you feel that fact could be reflected in the article as well, this could be considered.

Thank you so much for your comments and contributions,

Respectfully,

Bazaryakov— Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

QUESTION FOR Bazaryakov: You seem to be extremely familiar with Dmitri Novgorodsky. Perhaps you have special knowledge of him that I do not have. Do you know him personally or work with him? Are you one of his students? Are you Dmitri Novgorodsky himself? That will help me understand your viewpoint. And as for above-- I am just saying that the legal definition and the Wikipedia definition of notability are two different things. (Please automatically sign your posts with four tilde "~" marks)OfficeGirl 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear OfficeGirl,

I am a musician and know all notable people in the field - including most of the names featured in Wikipedia. I am not Dmitri Novgorodsky, unfortunately, and not his student, although I wish I were one. Should one be personally acquainted with the subject of one's article to submit the latter into Wikipedia? Is this a requirement? If so, then I don't meet it.

I hope my viewpoint is very easy to understand: Dmitri Novgorodsky is the first and the only Russian-Soviet musician in the world to have received a terminal degree in piano performance from the only Ivy League school in the United States which grants such degrees. He has had a distinguished career in his field, and obviously has received sufficiently notable awards and honors in that field to be included in Wikipedia.

If you are still bothered by a "mismatch" between the 'assistant professor' university rank and inclusion of its bearer in Wikipedia, here are the Wikipedia's gudelines on articles about university professors:

"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. 3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. 4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. 6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

As follows from the article, Dmitri Novgorodsky certainly meets more than at least one of the aforementioned conditions. However, as I have already pointed out in the course of our discussion, the aim of the article is not to acquaint the Wikipedia users with Dmitri Novgorodsky's academic rank, nor does the article feature one (the assistant professor title isn't cited there, you have brought it up). Mr. Novgorodsky's university position is a logical result and realization of his abilities to which the article is dedicated.

Lastly, are YOU acquainted with the academic and/or music field, or with Dmitri Novgorodsky's work and accomplishments personally, so you could provide the Wikipedia community with more valid, substantial, consequential, and weighty arguments for deletion than "we can't keep him just for being handsome"? The article does not feature Dmitri Novgorodsky's images, so your reference to his appearance in the argument is doubtful and suspicious: you sound as though you may have some irreconcilable personal dislike toward Dmitri Novgorodsky. After all, he is a living person, and perhaps YOU have had some conflicts of interest with him personally - or other reasons for denying the article an inclusion?

To that effect, I would invite other members of the Wikipedia community to participate in the discussion, so it wouldn't look like initiated and maintained by only one user, who is for some reason going out of his/her way to have the article deleted.

Respectfully,

Bazaryakov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My biggest concern with this article is whether or not it asserts the notability of its subject. I'm not sure that being the first Russian person to receive a specific degree from Yale makes him notable. Do we have articles on the first person from other nationalities? If you're going to use that as a criterion for inclusion, then we need to be thorough.

My next concern is that the article is completely unsourced except for the lists of doctoral candidates and lists of Moscow Conservatory Students. When I read the article, I thoguht that the numbered citations linked to external sources, but they are just internal wikilinks that are formatted incorrectly. For example, the article mentions that Mr. Novgorodsky played at Carnegie Hall. There is a citation next to this statement that I thought would verify this fact. However, it merely links to the Carnegie Hall page. That doesn't prove that he played there. That being said, notability is not asserted, because the only proven facts in the article are that he was a member of Conservatory and earned his doctorate. Those are hardly notable achievements.

If this article is going to be kept it needs to be expanded, sourced, and formatted correctly. Simply naming the places that he has played at is not going to cut it. These facts need to be verified by multiple, reliable, indepenedent sources. Right now, this article does not have much to stand on, if anything. Unless it is edited heavily within the next couple of days, I believe it should be deleted. None of the facts are verified and notability is certainly not established in the article.

Finally, Bazaryakov needs to read this policy, and comment on the article, not the editor. OfficeGirl asked a perfectly legitimate question and your response questioning her motive was unnecessary and in bad faith. --Cyrus Andiron 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Before initiating this AfD I looked up the subject's bio on the University web page where he is an assistant professor. It has the subject's picture. I found him to be remarkably handsome, but didn't find him to be encyclopedically notable. I had no idea it would be perceived as an insult to the subject to call him handsome. It comes as a surprise.OfficeGirl 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS- I did not post the comment about the subject's handsome good looks in boldface type. That was a change by Bazaryakov here:[4]. (Please do not alter posts made by other users, Bazaryakov. You might change the meaning of their posts, and that would be misrepresenting their viewpoints.) Thanks.OfficeGirl 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.EXISING WIKIPEDIA PRECEDENTS

Dear Wikipedia experts,


Thank you for your comments. Here is an example of an existing Wikipedia article about a musician: [[5]] Are there any links to verifiable, independent sources here, rather than external sources links? How is notability established, except for the fact that the subject "currently studies at Juilliard"? Bazaryakov 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)— Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment Take it to AFD if you want. If it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion it can be deleted as well. I'm not going to debate what is and is not acceptable. If you want to challenge an article, you are free to do so. However, you aren't helping your case by naming other articles that don't comply to Wikipedia's standards. Comparing one poorly written article to another poorly written article seems counterproductive to me. No one here is a "Wikipedia Expert." I don't think anyone really takes it that seriously. Wikipedia is not that important. --Cyrus Andiron 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT But doesn't existence of other articles show they HAVE qualified for inclusion in Wikipedia? I am just attempting to contest the notion that this article does not establish notability of its subject. Notability is verified both in text and in the references. If you have suggestions on how to better format the article, use the "help improve the article" link instead of calling for deletion of the subject. By the way, I don't take it so seriously either. Bazaryakov 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)— Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment No the existence of an article does not necessarily mean that it is notable. There are over two million articles on Wikipedia, so some articles will slip through the cracks. Now, when I talk about formatting, the link to Carnegie Hall should be typed like this [[Carnegie Hall]]. That will produce Carnegie Hall. Also, the article needs to be fleshed out some more. Find some information about his younger years and include that. Don't forget the small details like his birthdate and where he was born, etc. If he has written any famous pieces or has a compilation album, include that. Take a look at other musicians pages and try to format this article like them (a good, but not great example would be Bach). Obviously, there is a great deal more information on Bach, but that should at least give you a basis of comparison. --Cyrus Andiron 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

DOUBLE STANDARD, CONCERN

The article has more evidence in the reference section than any other articles on living performing musicians presently found in the Wikipedia. NONE of the articles I have read present any evidence of recordings, reviews, or concert (except for listing them) then the discussed article does (in the form of links and references). Deleting this article would create a double standard - then we would have to delete most of the existing articles. As to notability - this is a matter of personal taste. I would argue that Hitler isn't more notable than someone who has top degrees from major music schools in the world, maintains an active recording and performing career and is also teaching in an university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hitler? Please see Godwin's Law. You only think Hitler is not notable because he's a painter and not a musician. Oh, there are reliable sources that verify he was a painter. More sources would help with this subject's notability. Canuckle 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

GOOD ARTICLE. ENOUGH NOTABILITY. I DON'T KNOW WHY EVERYONE HAS FLIPPED OUT SO MUCH, REALLY. JUST LOOK AT OTHER PIANISTS' ENTRIES UNDER WIKIPEDIA'S List of classical pianists AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW THEY ESTABLISH THEIR SUBJECTS' NOTABILITY - OR HAVE MORE REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTAL EVIDENCE THEREOF THAN MINE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

LEAVE Here are existing Wikipedia articles on pianists:

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]]

[[10]]


CAN ANYBODY FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN ANY OF THEM? DO THEY MEET NOTABILITY CRITERIA? I PROMISE MOST ARTICLES ARE THE SAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazaryakov (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we are discussing whether Dmitri Novgorodsky meets the notability criteria. Discussion of whether those other people meet the criteria isn't appropriate here; such discussion should happen in the AfD discussion for each of those people. Please, it would be helpful if you would stop pointing out articles you think do not meet the notability criteria here- it is a distraction from the conversation. Instead, focus on showing the information and sources that show how this person meets the criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NOTABILITY CRITERIA ARE EVALUATED BY THE ESTABLISHED, EXISTING, ACCEPTED PRECEDENTS IN WIKIPEDIA. DENYING THE DISCUSSED ARTICLE A PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA SHOULD INCLUDE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED TO OTHER EXISTING ARTICLES. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LEFT IF THE DISCUSSED CRITERIA WERE APPLIED TO THEM AS WELL, WOULD THEY? I ASSUME THEIR PUBLICATION IN WIKIPEDIA WAS PRECEDED BY SIMILAR DISCUSSIONS, RIGHT? DO THEY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THEIR SUBJECTS' NOTABILITY AND DO THEY INCLUDE ANY MORE RELIABLE SOURCES THAN THIS ONE?

THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF "CRITERIA" AND ITS DISCUSSION HERE, WITHOUT REFERRING TO PRECEDENTS OF ITS CURRENT PRACTICAL APPLICATION IN WIKIPEDIA, BECOMES

1) WORTHLESS;

2) HYPOCRITICAL;

3) PREJUDICED REGARDING A PARTICULAR SUBJECT/ARTICLE;

4) PROMOTING DOUBLE-STANDARD IN WIKIPEDIA.

PERHAPS IT INDEED WOULD BE BETTER FOR SUCH AN ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED IN A VENUE WHERE THE NOTIONS OF "EVIDENCE", "NOTABILITY" ETC. ARE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO EVERYONE. OTHERWISE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARTICLES ARE TO BE PUBLISHED OR DELETED SOUNDS RIDICULOUS. Bazaryakov 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Okay, I'm sure the horse is getting pretty tired from being beaten so much, but here goes... The only aspect of this AFD that you need to be concerned about right now is the notability of Dmitri Novgorodsky. I have not looked at any of the other musicians articles you have pointed out, and frankly I don't plan to. To my knowledge, those articles are not up for deletion review right now, so that makes them irrelevant to the current subject. You can talk all you want about prior precedent, but it does not apply here. Those articles have not passed an AFD either because no one has nominated them for deletion. Basically, no one has checked them to see if they are notable. The community has either not noticed the articles or believes them to be on par with Wikipedia's policies. However, if you don't think that the other articles on pianists meet the notability criteria, then nominate them for deletion and have them removed as well (via consensus). If you want to keep this article, then focus on proving his notability rather than disproving someone elses. Also, if you think Wikipedia is biased, you're probably right. That's the way it is. Fortunately, no one is forcing you to be here. The door is always open. And for the love of god, quit typing in caps. Nothing says "enraged little school girl" like typing in all caps when you're angry. And don't forget to sign all posts with tildes (~~~~). --Cyrus Andiron 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


COMMENT. Indeed, why would anyone want to be in the venue where the concept of criteria has no logic and where everyone, nevertheless, arrogantly preaches on what is acceptable? Other articles weren't checked to see if they are notable? The community believes them to be on par with Wikipedia's policies? Then so much for Wikipedia "policies" - gibberish. FORGET IT, PUBLISH ARTICLES ON KNITTING. I AM SURE THEY WOULD FIT YOU "CRITERIAS". SEE YA. Oh, I forgot - I will type in caps until I decide to do otherwise - sorry it makes you so "enraged like a little girl" you pay attention. :)

Bazaryakov 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think you're getting it... Wikipedia has 2 million articles. That's quite a few. Some slip through. If you don't think they meet the criteria, nominate them yourself and stop complaining. We also have an article on knitting, feel free to check it out. --Cyrus Andiron 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the last comment, before I leave the discussion: read the article carefully and see if it matches the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. In particular, look at paragraphs 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12. Show how the subject isn't notable and how the evidence supplied in the reference section doesn't match at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria.

All the best,

Bazaryakov 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


COMMENT Hey all. I have heavily formatted the article. Please take a look and see if it matches the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. In particular, look at paragraphs 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the WP:MUSIC. In your arguments, please show how the subject isn't notable according to the criteria and how the evidence supplied in the "Reference", "Review", and "Further reading" sections of the article doesn't match at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria.

All the best,

Bazaryakov 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. I understand there are no more arguments for deletion, now that the article has been reformatted and includes additional sources which verify the subject's notability under WP:MUSIC?

Thank you all, Bazaryakov 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break for easier editing[edit]

Response The article is no longer as sloppy looking as it started out, but there's just no further substance than what we have been seeing on his University bio. He may have a promising future, but he's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.OfficeGirl 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]




The article now has an added press-release in the reference section from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. It proves the subject's touring: "Upcoming engagements for Novgorodsky include being the invited guest artist at the Young Musicians Festival, solo recital and master classes at the Kazakhstan National Conservatory and solo performances in St. Petersburg, Russia." Hope this sounds like a tour.

Bazaryakov 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 - It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.-- A review in a university paper, advertising and concert listings considered trivial.

Canuckle 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1) Review in University paper is considered trivial on a case-by-case basis. Besides, the review included in the article in the "review" section is from an independent paper, The New Britain Herald.

"multiple" usually means more than 2. Canuckle 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) *12 - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network - Is Wisconsin Public Radio considered national?"' - Yes, I would say Wisconsin National Public Radio is considered national. Every state in the country has its national radio, so does Wisconsin.

Just 4 programs on Wisconsin Public Radio are distributed nationwide and the live on Sundays isn't one of them. Canuckle 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio". WP:MUSIC doesn't say the performances "have to be distributed nationwide". The criteria say "...has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio". Wisconsin Public Radio is a part of NPR, and solo recitals on the series last more than an hour. To be invited to perform a solo recital in a life broadcast more than once is an honor only few are accorded. Thus, the subject fully meets that WP:MUSIC criterion. Bazaryakov 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It seems pretty clear that teh intent is a national audience. If you think otherwise, ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) Canuckle 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) Quoting OfficeGirl:"The article is no longer as sloppy looking as it started out, but there's just no further substance than what we have been seeing on his University bio. He may have a promising future, but he's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia" Response to OfficeGirl, a quote from WP:MUSIC: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". Also, the discussion here is not about the subject's University bio and the article's comparison with the latter. Please try to make relevant comments on the article in Wikipedia.


4) Kazakhstan National Piano Competition doesn't sound like a teenager competition. In the latter case, it would be called a "Kazakhstan National Teenagers' Competition". It is hard to verify winning a prize at a competition which took place in 1982 (when Internet in Kasakhstan did not exist, nor did it in the US). There are hard paper diplomas in Kazakh (!)language, and probably publications in newspapers in the same language verifying that, but couldn't be placed into a Wikipedia English web article. That, however, does not deplete the notion of Kazakhstan National Competition's notability.

Onus is on contributors to provide reliable sources. Canuckle 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, it is also on the disputers to prove otherwise. Bazaryakov 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Canuckle 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK, agree. But what will you do with the radio? Try to prove that Wisconsin Public Radio isn't national radio?. It is not "oh please", and it is not about "intent". This is what the WP:MUSIC guidelines say, "a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio", not "performances for national audiences". I hope Wisconsin is considered a part of the nation, and consequently its audience is national audience. And know I would like to hear your definition of "National Radio". Bazaryakov 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Public Radio is described as a "national syndicator to public radio stations in the United States" and "NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Its member stations are not required to broadcast all of these programs". That's content going out and being broadcast by multiple member stations across the nation. Whereas Wisconsin Public Radio is a network of radio stations in the state of Wisconsin. So "broadcast on a national radio or TV network" is a broadcast aired across a national network and not a broadcast aired in one city or state by a member station of a national network. That's where I am coming from. 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
He-he, that is just parsing definitions. No piano recitals are broadcast over the NATION, you can only hear them in a particular state where you are currently at. Besides, your definition of public radio is taken from a Wikipedia's article. What are the chances the author is absolutely right? We can't seem to agree on what public and national radio are, why should anyone trust the guy who wrote that article? Let's delete it!:)

Bazaryakov 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu're parsing, I'm explaining how a network operates and what being broadcast on a network is. And we know the NPR description is accurate BECAUSE ITS GOT A REFERENCE to its own mission statement. Canuckle 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article establishes and verifies that Dmitri Novgorodsky Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network (WP:MUSIC] more than once, has performed in major venues, gave a world premiere to a contemporary composition that won a Web Competition and was subsequently released on a professional label.


Bazaryakov 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When replying, instead of typing RESPONSE, can you type a full-colon? That will indent your replys and is easier-to-read formatting. Canuckle 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. By the way, the article now has an added press-release in the reference section from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. It proves the subject's touring: "Upcoming engagements for Novgorodsky include being the invited guest artist at the Young Musicians Festival, solo recital and master classes at the Kazakhstan National Conservatory and solo performances in St. Petersburg, Russia." Please also note that "...he has recently returned from a concert tour in Taiwan...".

Bazaryakov 00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a valid argument for deletion. You have never heard of the subject, and now you and other Wikipedians will. The article satisfies more than one WP:MUSIC criterion and you can't have it deleted just "because you've never heard of the subject". The purpose of an encyclopedia is to make you acquainted with subjects, what's the point if you know about them already?. I promise you that classical professionals, not fans, know the subject. But this is not the point of argument about deletion either. Failing to meet Heymann standard for rescuing articles nominated for deletion doesn't necessarily qualify an article for deletion. By the way, the article has another added source at the reference section, from the New Britain Herald. It is a reliable source which asserts the subject's winning of major prizes at music competitions. In short, the article amply establishes and verifies notability of its subject. Also, the article doesn't mention whether Dmitri Novgorodsky is tenured or not. Do Wikipedians have prejudices toward non-tenured professors who also happen to be outstanding performing musicians and therefore delete articles about them?

Bazaryakov 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please help improve the article, and/or or give advices on what information in it might need "in-line citations"?

The question involves a technicality such as formatting: providing in-line citations will take time for the editor to work on, but the article should not be deleted in the process. It satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria of notability and supplies ample references and sources.

Thanks,

Bazaryakov 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thank you so much for all your help, Bearian! In the "Dmitri Novgorodsky became an American citizen in 2004. [citation needed]" part of the bio section, what citation is suggested?

Thanks again, Bazaryakov 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl, thank you so much for your work on corrections, they are greatly appreciated. Bazaryakov 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Kazakh and Russian competitions are major competitions, but they took place in non-English speaking countries, before the Internet was invented. As far as convincing you, I don't think anything will convince you (see the discussion below). By contrast, ♫ Cricket02, who deals with musicians all the time, IS convinced. Of course you have right to hold on to your opinion. Thank you for the comments.

Bazaryakov 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please be civil and keep the debate about the merits of the subject and not your fellow Wikipedians. I would be convinced by a reliable source that is independent of the subject and is something more significant than a promotional piece or a concert listing. I've rescued several marginal bios from deletion before and in case you haven't noticed - I havent' yet unvoted either way yet, not even to delete, despite your unfriendly conversation. And I pointed out on the article's Talk page that non-English, non-Internet sources can be perfectly legit provided they are reliable sources. Canuckle 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus below I supported your claim that he went on national tours. So stop arguing and start trying to convince. On one bio, he claimed to have received "critical acclaim" following a Taiwan tour. Now if that acclaim was published in reliable sources and you can find it, you'd be somewhere. Canuckle 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. OK, sorry if the above remark is considered uncivil.

The fact of major prizes and touring is established by several independent sources:

1) Reference # 5, International Double-reed society conference (yes, this is a bio, but published by a source independent of the subject's workplace;

2) Reference # 2, the New Britain Herald - an independent source. Perhaps this is considered a "small town" newspaper (not everyone has the New York Times recapping one's prizes back in the 80s, which were won outside of the US and before the onset of Internet), although I can't find anywhere in WP that small papers aren't considered as reliable sources;

3) Reference # 42, Appleton's Post-Crescent: by the way, this newspaper serves an entire region.


4) Reference # 8: University of Iowa Press -Release - independent source. This is all I've got on Novgorodsky as far as Internet. Now how do I list sources that are non-English and non Internet? I'd appreciate your input, thanks.



Bazaryakov 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Canuckle, I've found several "hard copy" pieces of information:


1) An article "Keyed up" about D. Novgorodsky from the "Post -Crescent", dated November 10, 2000. It is about D. Novgorodsky (an interview with him, including his picture), it mentions his prize winning of National Competitions, but 2000 issues aren't kept in the online archives.


2) 2 Carnegie Hall performance programs (January 6, 2001 and Saturday 7, 1998) which list his prizes;

3) A Kazakh newspaper from 2002...

4) A recital program from Jerusalem Rubin Academy of Music (in Hebrew), which also refers to his prizes won in the former Soviet Union.


How do I cite (list) them in Wikipedia??

Thank you,

Bazaryakov 02:07, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dmitri_Novgorodsky&oldid=1137792215"