Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Bezetti

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. It appears that English-language coverage of the subject is sparse to say the least, but the consensus of this discussion seems to be that a listing in Großes Sängerlexikon is adequate indication of notability. Yunshui 雲水 07:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Bezetti

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

Victoria Bezetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG-despite it's length, there are just two sources. JTZegers (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is incorrect; two sources are enough to pass GNG, provided that they meet the other GNG criteria. The last paragraph does need a rewrite, but the rest of the article is fine as is. Deletion isn't cleanup, and due to the presence of useful content in the first two paragraphs, TNT isn't warranted here. CJK09 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I cannot access the second source, so I cannot see if it has significant coverage. I did look at the first source however, and it does not provide significant coverage, only a paragraph that is more data listing than actual coverage. Therefore, I do not think she passes GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those sources is a passing mention, meaning there is still not a single source that would help establish notability. The first source you listed is actually the second source listed in the article, the one that provides a data listing lasting a paragraph, not significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not every it's single one. I did note those that were, and I can't read the two encyclopedia entries, and I have not seen any print output. Clearly more would be present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources you did not mark, they were all passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you checked all the print I'm suggesting exists? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot base an article off "well it might exist". Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We also cannot delete articles because "I can't find anything on the Internet and I don't have the time to search print material from five decades ago. I don't read Romanian either, so that may be hindering the search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In short, your argument is that there are sources on the Internet that make passing mention of the subject. My argument is that the sources I have found on the Internet that make passing mention of the subject hint that there are sources in print that we do not have access to that indicate the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Görlitz, Wombat's argument is not that there are sources on the Internet that make passing mention of the subject, it is that you cannot base notability on hypothetical sources. Instead of insisting that you can, it would be better if you made those sources non-hypothetical by finding some. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have to prove there are no sources and since the subject was at her prime in a period before the Internet, we must look for sources from that period. While the sources are hypothetically there, the sources we have point to them. It's like the Q source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we must look for sources from that period is a good idea, but if they aren't found, the article should be deleted. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She appears in the Großes Sängerlexikon, see [1]. This can be used as a source for improving the article, by someone who knows german. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources book coverage, google snippets are not always indicative of the total coverage in a publication, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I added a source for content about her husband. This does not actually add to notability just content sourcing but I have been unable to find anything, especially support for "her career took a very successful course", more than passing mention that the subject was just "an opera singer". I would like to state that "Civility" is not only policy it is also part of our "Five pillars". I do not feel that editors are required to boldly state every time "I performed a WP:BEFORE search!" and think it is casting aspersions to imply that it is not performed by anybody. There are stipulations laid out, "considered a minimum search requirement", and if that is performed without success, that would include sourcing advancing WP:notability and not just content, then notability can be questioned. It is not unreasonable to expect sources to be supplied which is backed by many policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:notability (people) (including WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NMUSIC), Wikipedia:Citing sources, and many others for inclusion. WP:NEXIST states: Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. I don't see evidence of notability in the sources provided for an actual WP:BLP, Wording "her career took a very successful course" is backed by a dead link so is "peacock terms"|. Since notability is questioned providing "snippets" do not really provide evidence. If that is the direction we are being gently herded then it is not cool. I would rather see evidence of notability that would permanently "keep" an article than hopes of one day finding a crystal ball, or suggestions that evidence "might possibly exist" somewhere in the universe. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to insufficient notability/sourcing. We need to remember that WP:BEFORE is optional, but WP:V and WP:N are not. And it has always been the case that the burden of proof is on those seeking to include material, not those seeking to remove it. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BEFORE is not optional. It's a requirement. We must "carry out these checks", which have not been done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you wish to change policy to make WP:BEFORE mandatory, feel free to gather a consensus for that change in an appropriate venue. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • While BEFORE states to "please be sure to" do the listed items, if you don't, I, and other editors, will mercilessly ridicule your lack of motivation, particularly if RSes are found. We don't have the time to try to dance with the wikilawyers who want to avoid having to do the work or who will complain when caught-out when not doing it. No, I'm not going to try to get it to become policy, thank. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For both the Groẞes Sängerlexicon and Who's who in opera, the coverage seems to consist of a short overview, with some biographical facts and what she's known for - one entry in a list of many, many opera singers. Not secondary and not exactly in-depth. History of the Romanian national opera is a passing mention. The page cited for Life in opera is "Acknowledgements", so that seems to be a passing mention as well. So unless someone finds more sources, it does not pass GNG in my opinion. PJvanMill (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning delete. I'm ambivalent. We have an acknowledged systemic bias against older or non-anglophone article subjects for which online English sources are necessarily less available. That's part of the reason we have SNGs, to reduce the need for "we need to find sources now" analysis that might not be possible in the timeframe of an AfD. On the other hand, I don't see that she meets WP:SINGER either. A cântat alături de mari nume from the Mediafax source above seems to be more of an "alongside big names" than a "she is a big name", and her appearances (not sufficiently significant) and membership in ensembles (only one) doesn't seem to make the cut either. Maybe WP:SINGER slightly favours bands or solo singers, but AfD obviously isn't the place to make changes to our guidelines. Policy-wise, close to the line it may be, but I think she falls on the delete side. I wouldn't be terribly troubled if this was closed as "no consensus" though, and if anyone wants to work on it, it should definitely be drafitfied/userified on request. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this had been relisted I think I'll reevaluate whether she can meet SINGER or GNG, with an eye on any more N that might EXIST. The later discussion moves me towards a "keep". Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Großes Sängerlexikon is clearly an RS, and the extent of the coverage of her in it is clearly WP:SIGCOV as it describes the subject in detail (that is, it gives you the essential details about her). Simply being a "brief overview" doesn't prevent coverage from being WP:SIGCOV - Encyclopedias are brief over-views! Who's who in Opera: is a similar RS. It is a long accepted principle here that whilst directories etc. are not typically sigcov, encyclopedias (and similar books) may well be. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have understated the extent of coverage, but WP:GNG requires secondary sources while GS and WIWIO are tertiary, which was the main point I wanted to make. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not correct in stating that GNG requires SECONDARY sources, it requires reliable sources. In fact, one example, "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM" is clearly a tertiary source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following comes straight from WP:GNG, third bullet point: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relying solely on tertiary sources means relying on their criteria for inclusion. For all we know, the goal of the Groẞes Sängerlexicon might be to have an entry on every singer that ever lived. Unless WP:GNG is changed, the requirement of secondary sources really is there. This is also in line with WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't relying upon secondary sources means relying upon their criteria for inclusion, too? I'm not following the distinction here. Ultimately, wiki-notability is about whether the world has cared about a topic, in a way that has left documentation. Trying to draw a line between "secondary" and "tertiary" is more confusing than helpful here, I think. After all, the same book could be a primary source for some information (e.g., the biographical information for its author, or anything the author says in their preface about the writing process), secondary for other information, and tertiary for still other statements (WP:PSTS). XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the GNG clearly draws that distinction. To Doesn't relying upon secondary sources means relying upon their criteria for inclusion, too?: in this case, it concerns tertiary sources that cover a huge number of people, whereas a secondary source typically talks about one subject. I trust a secondary source to determine if its topic is relevant, but I don't trust a tertiary source to make that judgement for thousands of subjects. If that makes sense. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? A biography that gathers information from multiple secondary sources is also a tertiary source. I don't trust your logic. GNG is clear: Sources should be secondary. It does not state Reliable sources can only be secondary nor Sources must be secondary. Your claim is WP:OR. WP:STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than just a preference: the GNG does not say Secondary sources would be ideal, but tertiary sources are also fine. It says "Sources" should be secondary, which I read as "Sometimes, tertiary sources are enough to establish notability, but normally you need secondary sources". Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my previous reply, as it wasn't really thought through enough. A better answer is that yes, we do rely on secondary sources' inclusion criteria. But for something like a newspaper, those inclusion criteria would be something like '(1) Is it relevant to this article? (2) Can we fit it in? (3) Is the article interesting enough to publish?' That's fundamentally different from 'How important does a singer need to be to be included in this book?' which is the question these two particular sources had to answer. So yes, I do think there is a legitimate concern that the two non-passing-mention sources we have are over-inclusive. And again, the GNG does draw this line. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence is there that these sources are over-inclusive? At least in the case of Bezetti, they clearly state why she is included and it is not for trivial accomplishments. It is for singing appearances in leading roles with multiple national-level opera companies, and on Romanian television. FOARP (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon re-reading it, it is indeed true that it isn't a hard requirement, but the GNG does say that secondary sources are the best evidence of notability and indicates that secondary sources are what one should have in mind ("Sources" should be secondary); it would follow that multiple tertiary sources are not necessarily enough for notability. In this case, these two tertiary sources are not enough evidence of notability for me. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To state the obvious - The entire reason for the emphasis on secondary sources in GNG is to discourage use of primary sources (as is emphasised in the sentence following the sentence in which it is said that secondary sources should be used). There is no similar deprecation on Tertiary sources, nor any good policy reasons (as tertiary sources necessarily come from secondary sources) for doing so. Indeed the guidelines state: “Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited“. This article is supported by exactly such reputable tertiary sources. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that is obvious at all. If it's only to exclude primary sources, why doesn't it say "Sources" should be secondary or tertiary? That tertiary sources may be cited (by the way, primary sources can also be cited for certain things) does not mean they are suitable for establishing notability. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It literally say that you can cite Tertiary sources. It says it in the exact section I quoted. It nowhere advises caution with Tertiary sources in the same way that primary sources are warned against. Any such document should be read purposively - why are they saying "secondary sources should be used"? Clearly to warn against relying entirely on primary sources, since that is the what is stated in the following sentence. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking at WP:GNG. The general notability guideline. It includes a soft requirement of secondary sources. In WP:BASIC, the basic notability guideline for people, it is a hard requirement. I don't know what you're looking at. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." WP:GNG uses similar language (i.e., it excludes sources not independent of the subject, which would typically include primary sources). Why the emphasis on secondary sources? To dissuade use of primary ones.
The entire purpose of the emphasis on secondary sources in wiki guidelines is the dissuasion of use of Primary sources. As much as this applies to tertiary sources, it is only where they are thought to have poor inclusion criteria - but this is not the case here, there is no evidence of that. FOARP (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking around, I've found quite a lot of agreement that tertiary sources are often over-inclusive for the purpose of being 'complete'. See for example this essay: Indiscriminate sources must be considered skeptically when determining both notability and due weight. Unfortunately, a large proportion of tertiary sources are indiscriminate. On the other hand, I can find basically no one saying that tertiary sources can generally be assumed not to be over-inclusive. So, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the fact that there are multiple tertiary sources is not, on its own, enough for notability. Thus I will be sticking to my delete vote for now. Either it needs to be demonstrated that these two sources are in fact not indiscriminate, or secondary sources need to be found. And if this person really is notable, finding secondary sources should be doable. PJvanMill (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be looking at the guidelines about directories (e.g., phone-books, or business directories) - but this is obviously not the kind of source being relied on as no-one can conceivably argue that this is simply a list of all singers, or even a list of singers selected at random, since the sources themselves state why Bezetti is included (as a result of prominent, clearly notable, national-level opera singing appearances). As the Sängerlexikon states, Bezetti sang for the Romanian national opera, the Belgrade and Sofia national operas, the Berlin state opera, the Helsinki opera house, and appeared as the principle singer in La Traviata on Romanian television - do you really think this is the profile of someone selected at random?!?
The guidelines clearly state that reliable almanacs, other encyclopedias, textbooks, guide-books etc. are OK to rely on. The Sängerlexikon and Who's Who in Opera are exactly such sources. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a source being okay to rely on for verifiability does not mean it is okay to rely on it for notability. I think it is a reasonable expectation that a notable subject is covered by secondary sources and not just tertiary ones, so I view the apparent absence of secondary coverage as strong evidence against notability. To do you really think this is the profile of someone selected at random?!?: I leave that judgement up to reliable secondary sources. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST, because I find this argument unconvincing: "For all we know, the goal of the Groẞes Sängerlexicon might be to have an entry on every singer that ever lived." It is not possible to have an entry on every singer that ever lived, or even a large fraction of them. The book has editors who have made editorial decisions on who to include. This is third-party independent coverage that addresses the subject directly and in detail. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems there have been efforts to find significant coverage in secondary sources and they have been fruitless, so I don't think NEXIST goes up here. I think it's reasonable to expect a notable topic to be covered not just in tertiary but also in secondary sources, so the fact that secondary sources have not been found so far strongly counts aganst notability, in my view.
And yes, obviously these books have editors who have made editorial decisions, but my fear is that they may have used a lower bar for inclusion than reliable secondary sources would, in which case her presence in them is not enough proof of notability. And as I've said in my comment just above, it seems many tertiary sources do have a lower bar. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PJvanMill, I have considered your view; you've posted fifteen times in this discussion so far. I do not find your argument compelling, because you seem to be reading the mind of the publishers of that book, and criticizing an inclusion policy that you do not know that they had. It might be a good idea to check out WP:BLUDGEON and then take a step back, and allow other people to look at the article, the sources and the discussion, and make their own judgment. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair at this point to note that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and as was recently clarified, one directed primarily to repetitive argumentation rather than simply posting a lot of time (which is sometimes necessary when you are in the minority). In PJvanMill's defence, though they have repeated a bit, they have also developed and changed their argument a bit as well. I do think you are right that their attack on what appear to be RS's, with editors etc., as not having restrictive inclusion policies, does not have any real grounds and appears based on mind-reading. They need to show genuine evidence that these books have no, or low, inclusion criteria to overturn what appears to me a safe presumption that a book covering national-level opera company singers who starred in leading roles, is in fact not simply choosing singers at random or setting the bar too low. FOARP (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be reading the minds of the editors of those books, and you are right that we do not know what exact inclusion criteria they used. That we do not know is the point. Everyone else here seems to basing rather a lot on the assumption that these books used a sufficiently high bar. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Useful to note the description linked to below: Großes Sängerlexikon, which essentially describes it as being an encyclopedia of prominent singers, containing 7,000 entries in two volumes, spanning the period from 1590-1990 (i.e., 400 years). 7,000 singers over 400 years is less than 20 for each year, and is clearly a highly discriminating selection given that this is the entire world of classical performance we are talking about, which at any time has hundreds of thousands of artists performing in it, and, especially in the example of Bezetti, is clearly someone of national-level importance as they sang in leading roles on national television and for national opera companies. Compare this to the Dictionary of National Biography, which has 50,113 biographical articles covering 54,922 lives in 60 volumes, and which is endorsed as a source by the guidelines. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 24 May 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_Bezetti