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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert[edit]

A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert (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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per WP:TVSHOW. The subject is about a nationally broadcast concert on a major network, PBS's Great Performances. Five seconds of searching took me to this review in The New York Times. The nominator has not done any research, but has summarily nominated multiple articles out of a personal vendetta against the article's creator and is not acting in good faith in my opinion..4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings; the existence of reviews does not change that. Please WP:AGF; I do not even know the article creator and have no opinion on them. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding of notability guidelines is along the lines of this comment from Dodger67 in a recent discussion: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. A topic that fails a Wikiproject's subject-specific notability guidelines but passes WP:GNG should not be deleted. Colin M (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here other than basically catalogue entries. No evidence this is a notable recording. Guy (help!) 23:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether or not it passes WikiProject Classical music's notability guidelines, it would appear to pass WP:GNG (per the non-trivial NYTimes coverage found by 4meter4 above, plus the Gramophone coverage cited in the article), and that's enough. Colin M (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I didn't notice at first, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings is actually a Wikiproject advice essay, not a policy or guideline, so that makes it an even weaker basis for deletion.
• Delete subject specific guidelines often exist because coverage of some subjects is so exhaustive but in fleeting ways that we would create more articles than would ever be needed or sustainable just on GNG. This is clearly what we face with politician articles, where GNG would justify almost every unelected candidate getting an article, but we don't want that. Mainly because it would make Wikipedia more presentist and Amero-centric, two things it already is way too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. Part of the article is a long paraphrase of a critic's review - - certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the coverage mentioned above not satisfy WP:NALBUM#1? Unlike the WikiProject essay cited by nominator, WP:NALBUM does not exclude reviews as a form of RS coverage. As for the copyvio issue, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the majority of the article was plagiarized, then yeah, maybe it would be better to blow it up. But that doesn't seem to be the case here - as far as I can tell, it's just a problem of injudiciously long quotations in the "Critical reception" section. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Colin M (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't really only an album. It's a live PBS television broadcast that was recorded and then secondarily released on DVD and CD. The relevant policy is WP:TVSHOW which only requires that it aired on a major network. PBS is a major network.4meter4 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources. Opera News included the work in it's 2016 review of the work's re-release as a part of a collection of Frederica von Stadt's material. This shows longevity which further lends to notability. See [1]. The work has also been broadcast on WQXR and it charted at number 10 on the top classical music sales (see here) in the December 1996 publication of Billboard.4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per reviews in Gramophone, NYT and Opera News. The article meets GNG. So the Classical Music page cited (not even an SNG, but an essay) is not compelling evidence. As for the "fails NALBUM" argument, saying that an article fails some SNGs tells us nothing—rather, it needs to fail all SNGs and GNG to be non-notable—and I hope I'm misunderstanding the nominator when they dismiss "the existence of reviews" as if secondary sources are irrelevant. (The !vote is "weak" as I can't actually view two of the sources, but I'm taking it on good faith that the reviews are substantial. Summoned here from a neutral WPTV notice.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 4meter4's arguments: show aired by major stations, reviewed in good papers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passses WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews despite the opinions of a deeply flawed essay imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 4meter4's research findings and reasoning. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief excerpts from Steane's review will replace what has been deleted in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2019 (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.