Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Raabe

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 keep. While concerns remain about the depth and DaneCoGuy's neutrality, consensus appears clear that per the sources identified and added during the discussion, she's notable Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Raabe

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Nancy Raabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable secondary sources. No indication of notable awards or charted songs. She is a very accomplished cleric, though the article is sourced by YouTube videos, biographic summaries from places she has worked, and self-sourced publications. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several of her publishers have bio pages and info, they are unrelated parties
The article has sources to New York Times
She is president-elect of a large non-profit organization
The award from the Concordia Historical Institute is an important one. It relates to a lengthy book in print from an unrelated publisher
None of her many publications are self-sourced, they are all reviewed and edited by third party publishers, there are dozens of music publications at unrelated sources
Is there something else I can provide regarding this? DaneCoGuy (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneCoGuy: You took photos of her two weeks ago. Is there a personal connection? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Photo for her personal use, no compensation to me DaneCoGuy (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This 2013 article about her has biographical and career information: From critic to composer (Milton Courier). Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC) I haven't accessed the Wikipedia Library yet, but via GScholar/ProQuest, there are two reviews in The Hymn, Vol. 62, Iss. 1, (Winter 2011) (opens with biographical information), Vol. 65, Iss. 2, (Spring 2014). Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia Library includes: A 3-sentence review in American Organist Magazine for her work How Good It Is - Settings of Carl Schalk Hymn Tunes (Apr. 2011, via EBSCOhost), short book reviews for Carl F. Schalk: A Life in Song in Currents in Theology and Mission (Apr. 2014, via Gale) and Internet Bookwatch/Midwest Book Review (Dec. 2013, via Gale), and many articles written by her. Beccaynr (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - there is also this article, that while mostly an interview, is also focused on her and includes biographical/career information: Raabe takes new call, leaves Marshall church (The Courier, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) And also this, with more in-depth coverage: Holy Trinity Lutheran Church installs new pastor (The Courier, 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to nominator's ad hominem questioning here. Oh, and meets GNG, which is both true and the policy-based pretext, but the real reason I'm bothering to register a !vote is the nominator's response to a page contributor. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically your !vote is an ad hominem. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see anything ad hominem in Magnolia677's question. As it turns out, DaneCoGuy wrote he's Raabe's spouse. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as pure promotion. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All such material has been removed DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added the connected contributor template to the article Talk page, and while I have removed some promotional material, I believe there is still work to be done, including after what appears to be unsourced promotional-sounding information was added back into the article, and sourced biographical information was removed [1]. I also would have already removed the Conferences section as WP:NOTCV, except during my earlier research on the WP Library, there were several hits for conference proceedings that could be reviewed and considered for possible inclusion. I have only made a first run through the article as part of my review for the AfD discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All puffery and promotional material has been removed by editors DaneCoGuy (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with reliable sources coverage. Has been heavily edited by Beccanyr who is an uninvolved editor so is more neutral now. The earlier editor DayneCoguy has explained his coi as the spouse of the subject Nancy Raabe, so that should be added to the talkpage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added that I am her spouse in the Talk page. DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Draftify because this needs help to meet Wikipedia standards) I'm not seeing sufficient reliable sources. There are multiple cites to a very local paper, the Courier. One (#2) seems to be substantial (don't know how much a local paper counts), others mainly say that she took a new job; in any case these would count as one source per WP:RS. There is about a page in an article from "Hymn", which is listed as a scholarly journal. Between those two, though, there is not enough to cover the content of a WP biographical article. Most of the article's references to her music are youtube videos of performances, which are not independent sources. Three of the links (9, 10, 11) are to sales sites for her music. Some of the references do not mention her (8,14, 32, 33 - and I didn't check them all). She has authored a book and written music, but the sources about her just aren't there. If we cut out all of the videos, sales sites and ones that fail verification, we're left with very little. (Kudos to her loving husband, but who hasn't gotten his Wikipedia chops yet.) However, it would be worth looking at "Raabe Prize For Excellence In Sacred Composition" which gets quite a few hits although many are announcements of winners. But there might be something there. Lamona (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not yet added all of the reviews I found and listed in my comments above, including for one of her books. Article content does not determine notability, and I have found the research process challenging because her journalism career had produced a lot of hits for her own writing, so I am not necessarily convinced there is not more secondary commentary or context available to better support this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her notability is backed up by her position as an officer in a large music nonprofit, and by her many years of writing and composing for unrelated publishers.
    There are published reviews of four of her books. DaneCoGuy (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaneCoGuy, if you have reviews you should list them here. I didn't find them with a Google or Scholar search so you need to show sources for what you are asserting. Also, sources would be needed for performances of her works. (And I'm not sure that Youtube videos will be acceptable if they are uploaded by a reliable entity, but perhaps someone knows.) As I mentioned, linking to sales sites, and un-verifiable media (youtube, tiktok, etc.) is not generally considered okay as sources. Those CAN be listed in an "external sources" section, but they don't support notability. So the game is sources, sources, sources! Lamona (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, DaneCoGuy, that all facts in a biographical article must be verifiable in sources. There is quite a bit here that is not cited to an external source. Some examples are: information about her father; her specialty was French horn; the paragraph that begins "Raabe has composed ten..."; and the third and fifth paragraphs in that section. WP:BLP (biographies of living persons) states: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." If any of these facts can be found in sources we will need to add those sources as references. If they are not, those paragraphs could legitimately be deleted from the article by any editors. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good source for the grandfather and more info about it, but another editor deleted that
I don't know how to list the music publications -- they are on the publishers' catalog sites, but editors delete these as being commercial
The YouTube for Tom Mueller, he posted it, not me, so it should count
All of her articles and compositions, there are many of them, they are edited and distributed by third parties, they should count as notability DaneCoGuy (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an editor has found some and listed them in footnotes 17 and 18. DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:16, 27
Please read these two Wikipedia editing pages: WP:INDY and WP:RS. There must be reliable published sources that are independent of the subject that validate all of the facts in an article. You can have a section that lists things that the person has created, but ideally those also would be sourced to news or journal articles. To understand WP:N (notability) in this case please see: WP:ANYBIO. Many of the problems we are pointing out here are that this article does not follow Wikipedia standards, so you need to understand those standards. It might be useful to turn this into a draft that you could submit at WP:AFC (articles for creation) where you would get help in creating a valid article. Lamona (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO is one of the alternative criteria for notability, per the notability guideline for people, and reviewing the WP:BASIC criteria for this guideline, as well as all of the linked concepts within that section would likely be more helpful for this article, due to the nature of the sources available for this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 (UTC)

Oaktree b, I looked at that as well. Of the 3 that I found there, only one had 1 cite. I looked at the Ithaca College Choral Composition contest which is listed there from her site - in 2010 she was one of 5 composers, but she was not the "winner". (list here). Also, there are two reviews here but one of them appears to be sponsored by the Ass'n of Lutheran Church Musicians, of which I believe I saw she is an officer. It will be hard to consider that independent, if that is the case. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her notability is backed up by her composition being performed by Duke University on national TV, by the featuring of her music at a large liturgical conference, and by her invitation to speak/preach at an important chamber music concert. DaneCoGuy (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2022 (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/Nancy_Raabe&oldid=1080400529"