- Lawrence Kaptein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This page (about me, but not originally written by me) was deleted for being unsourced. I've prepared a sourced version (to the best of my ability) here: User:Larrycaptain/ Lawrence Kaptein that I believe complies with the sourcing and notability guidelines. I'd be grateful for input and would like to have the deletion overturned and my draft (or another revised version) reinstated. The original article was brought to my attention by a graduate student doing research on the multicultural choral music movement in the US - an important focus of my professional work. 70.151.3.10 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit recreation but I think it is still borderline, and I urge the ed. to make it stronger, to avoid a second delete decision. I'm not sure whether it meets WP:PROF, but it might does meet WP:CREATIVE as a musician. In the effort to make sure that everything possibly relevant to notability was shown , the article is considerably over-detailed--local awards within a college do not contribute to notability, and a strong article does not need them. Similarly, I do not think that a college's own publications of local newspapers are usually accepted as showing notability, and they represent far too many of the references. What we really need are reviews of performances in major magazines or papers, especially the major nation ones on choral music and music education. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I very much appreciate everyone's assistance in creating an acceptable article. The university publications can certainly be deleted if needed. There are three major national publications (books) listed (Jordan, Garretson, and Noble) that reference contributions to the fields of multicultural programming, music education, choral performance. Larrycaptain (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)LK[reply]
- Recreate with similar caveats to DGG. I'd be amenable to helping Larrycaptain do some editing and formatting work on the draft, to try and get it up to scratch. Yunshui 雲水 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse whether or not the article was originally added by the subject, it's still vanity / self-promotion, which we should avoid as much as possible. An impressive-looking wall of sources doesn't hold up to scrutiny, for example attempts to use Youtube as a source (!!!) several times. Simply put, I'm not convinced this person's notability has changed significantly since it was deleted in April. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the feedback on what to list/not list is extremely helpful. It seems, as a novice editor to Wikipedia, I approached the revision of the deleted article with too wide a variety of sources. The original article had zero references. Yunshui's very kind offer to help me cull/focus the prose and citations was extremely generous. I am hoping to have the opportunity to see what can be recreated with her guidance - perhaps using just the book and national periodical citations? This article is honestly not intended to be self-promoting, but objectively reflect my contribution to the initiation of the multicultural choral music movement in the United States. I've also heard that Wikipedia has been very useful to my graduate students, as potential employers research mentor's names listed on resumes to gain further insight into an applicant's educational experiences and potential professional focuses. Thanks again for all the suggestions and direction. 98.245.92.62 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Larry Kaptein[reply]
- Endorse. The deletion was on grounds of notability and the draft presented doesn't address this in the way required by the general notability guidelines: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the sources given are either not reliable (e.g., YouTube) or not independent (sources from the University of Colorado). Notability comes from who talks about you, not what you've done, and the draft is essentially a CV. Having articles published in scholarly journals and referenced by other academics is what academics are supposed to do so isn't evidence of notability. I appreciate that you've tried to be neutral (for example, including reference to criticism of your work), writing about yourself on Wikipedia is "strongly discouraged" (emphasis in the original). Dricherby (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can academics be notable except by doing what academic are supposed to do? Actors become notable by their acting, politicians by their political activities , writers by their writing, and researchers by their research. No scientist is likely to become notable as a scientist except by writing scholarly articles in journals, with other people linking and commenting to them. (there are other criteria in WP:PROF, but almost always the awards, distinguished professorships, membership, etc. come as a consequence of the scientific work. Notability comes from what you do, and is proven by how much reliable sources talk about you. (in the case of academic, by the articles discussing yours, which is the way people in the subject determine importance). If a scientist had RSs talking about him as a politician, he'd be notable asa politician, not a scientist. The only people whose private life gets talked about is people in certain performing arts, and the very famous in other fields. (I'm not arguing he's notable under WP:PROF--as I said, I don't think he is, but a general statement as wrong as the one above cannot go unchallenged). DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically, people become notable as a result of rising to the top of their profession. (Disclaimer: yes, we all know you become notable by having significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; this whole comment should be read through the filter of, "What do you have to do to get that coverage?") People are notable as a result of being exceptional, not just for doing the thing that people in their profession are supposed to do. Ordinary actors aren't notable: only the ones who are in major stage productions and movies. Ordinary politicians (e.g., town councillors) aren't notable: only the ones who are elected to regional or national government or the mayors of big cities. Ordinary authors and musicians aren't notable: only the ones who sign significant book/record deals and come to wide attention. You don't mention it but ordinary sportspeople aren't notable: only the ones who play in fully professional leagues or otherwise at the highest level. And, likewise, ordinary academics aren't notable: only the ones whose contribution to their field is significant enough to meet the sorts of criteria at WP:PROF. It's not that academics are required to do something other than "academic stuff", just as politicians aren't required to do something other than "politician stuff": but they're required to do that and do it to a level that exceeds the average. Every academic has written scholarly papers. Every academic has had those papers referenced by other academics. If that was all that was required to establish notability, every academic would be notable. Dricherby (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on various scientometric studies, I've seen averages of "faculty" in the broadest sense, of between 1 and 3, and most published articles are cited either 1 time or not at all. If you want to day "the averaged tenured professor," you're already talking about the top level; it makes as much sense as to say the average professional baseball player isn't particularly distinguished. Actually, "average" isn't an applicable concept for things that fall under the Bradford Distribution, such as the productivity of anyone in anything. The usual results from it in all fields of human activity is the top 20% of the agents doing 80% of the activity, but one can make the cutoff anywhere, since the curious property of this distributions is that if you take that 80% of the activity, 80% of it will then again be done by 20% of that highest 20%, and so on, until you get that approximately half the activity is done by one percent of the agents. In practice , where we draw the cutoff varies widely in different fields. notability is arbitrary, and depends on what we want to do with the encyclopedia, DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything about "the average tenured professor". A professional sportsman is the elite in his sport; "academics" covers everything from postdocs to Albert Einstein. I agree that there's a lot of latitude in determining what counts as the elite within that profession but, wherever you place the cut-off, doing the stuff that all academics do isn't evidence of being in the elite. Dricherby (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After a side-discussion with DGG, I think our disagreement here is over phrasing, rather than the underlying concepts. Dricherby (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse on two grounds. The close was correct based upon the AFD and the state of the article at the time. Secondly, the new evidence brought forth which are predominantly YouTube sources do not contribute to any argument that this person does in fact meet GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. I find the G11 argument even stronger on the proposed replacement draft considering the COI. If Yunshui and DGG can improve the draft to get it through an AFC process then I would be willing to reconsider, but that has not happened yet and this decision is made off what we have on hand. Mkdwtalk 20:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
