Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Wiggins

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wiggins[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)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Nearly every source cited was behind a paywall, but I was unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NONE of the sources cited are behind a paywall! I accessed all of them through Googlebooks and the public library. Wiggins' award from the National Federation of Music Clubs is listed on p. 756 of the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers by Aaron I. Cohen which is a standard library reference work.T. E. Meeks (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nominator claiming this well-referenced article is a hoax? She's in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, so clearly the topic is encyclopedic. pburka (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: I don't believe the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers meets criteria #3 at WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should follow the "lemming principle" like Wiktionary. If a topic appears in another encyclopedia it should generally appear in ours. pburka (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage in multiple book sources including highly respected reference works so she passes WP:GNG and deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I located some of the books cited in the article, and the entries were one-sentence long (in other words, she exists). How is this "significant coverage" per WP:GNG? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete - this is well-referenced, with bios in several reference books. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass GNG or WP:COMPOSER. Let's evaluate the sources in the article: Organ and harpsichord music by women composers : an annotated catalog literally just lists her as a woman composer for organ/harpsichord; Music (vol. 9) appears to be a one sentence obit; International encyclopedia of women composers is also just her being mentioned in a list of composers as is Women in Music: An Encyclopedic Biobibliography, Volume 2; Directory of American Women Composers lists Wiggins as a piano teacher (but again, nothing other than her name in a list); The Southwestern Musician is also just a name-drop w/o context (seems to imply that either she was in grade one or that her works were performed by a grade one class, but preview is unclear); "Front Matter" (JSTOR) says that she has composed a piece for grade 2 piano (not even a full sentence reference, also is literally an ad so wouldn't help to meet GNG anyhow); and the Library of Congress source just lists that she composed "The Ghost" (and is a copyright record, ie. unpublished primary source so doesn't matter anyway in terms of GNG). Newspapers.com is paywalled so I can't assess. Likewise, Contemporary American Composers: A Biographical Dictionary and Women Composers: A Biographical Handbook of Women's Work in Music have no preview on google books. BUT unless 2 of these last 3 sources constitute sig cov (unlikely given that two of them are used exclusively to cite that she composed individual pieces) the article as it is currently sourced does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. So we must look elsewhere for sources. My search (on my university's library database and on google) found nothing (except for Mary Wiggins the stuntwoman/actor and scholar Mary Jo Wiggins). Also, there's no indication of her meeting any part of WP:COMPOSER. Samsmachado (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the entry in International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, Contemporary American composers: a biographical dictionary, and Women composers : a handbook combined with her published compositions meet notability requirements. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Do you believe the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers meets criteria #3 at WP:ANYBIO? Why? Also, which of her published compositions meet the notability requirements? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi Magnolia677, I did go back and forth on this one. In the end it was everything above combined that swayed me. It's definitely not the strongest case for notability. Personally I hope this is closed as No Consensus (sly hint to closer :), so if someone feels strongly about it, the subject can be returned to at a later date with fresh perspectives without the prejudice of a previous keep. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being selected for inclusion in multiple major reference works is, by definition, evidence of notability. This is not the same as being covered in the mass media, which might report on something that’s trending on Twitter this week but has no real importance; inclusion in a reference work demonstrates that experts have concluded that she has enduring significance in her field.

The argument that these encyclopedia entries are not significant coverage seems to rest on a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is. WP:SIGCOV does not stipulate that a text must contain a certain number of words to be significant coverage, rather it states: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Entries in paper encyclopedias are often brief, as they have a limited amount of space; but they do address the topic directly and in detail. Here is her entry in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, misleadingly characterized above as "a mention in a list". It is short but it gives all the relevant facts of her life and work: her date and place of birth/death, her education and career, and the style of her compositions. Just because it is not padded out with flowery prose does not mean it is not significant coverage. TL;DR: being included in an encyclopedia means that someone is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Spicy (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand how this would not appear to pass SIGCOV, but Spicy's argument sums it up well; the fact that she is mentioned in several published lists of women composers is significant in itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes GNG. I do not understand how the single delete !vote can justify their position with a self-confessed inability to access most of the sources provided. Hey ho. ——Serial 16:42, 28 August 2020 (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.