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. Vmavanti non-English sources are allowed as long as they satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Casini[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)

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Unsourced since 2010. Vmavanti (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are reviews of her work online, e.g. this, some interviews, book mentions such as this but mostly all I find is programmes. I think this is a very difficult field in which to meet our notability requirements and the subject is clearly a long established and internationally regarded performer, so there may be a case for keeping the article even if it isn’t a clear pass. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you think that non-notable jazz musicians have Enrico Rava or Phil Woods as co-players in their discography, you are severely mistaken. I second Mccapra's opinion on the appropriateness of the WP notability criteria for performers in arts, btw. -- Kku (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a person becomes notable if they have been around notable people? That one "catches notability" like catching a virus?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added two book references to the article, one the entry about the subject in a Dictionary of Italian Jazz, which also serves to verify much of the article text, and the other from an interview where Lee Konitz specifically compliments her. Add to these the sources identified by Mccapra above - in particular John Litweiler's substantial 2003 review from Jazz Times - and I would say there is enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"substantial" 2003 review". This is an opinion which really ought to be analyzed.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources found by AllyD. Mccapra (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the question becomes: Are two sources enough? That's what exists right now: two. Let's look at them carefully and slowly. One is in Italian, which is a nice thumb in the eye for all English speaking people in the world who might be reading the English Wikipedia rather than the Italian Wikipedia. The second is a mention in passing. Here it is: "One of the nicest situations was when I worked with Barbara Casini. She stretches the time the way the great Brazilians can do. Talk about over the bar line—she was all over the place, and it was swinging!" Not especially informative. I've been assuming that people who contribute to Wikipedia either have read the documentation on proper sourcing or they know it off the top of their heads because they learned it in school. I'm beginning to doubt that assumption.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language sources count towasrds WP:GNG whether an editor likes it or not, and that is policy, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They count". What are you, eleven? I know what the documentation says about foreign languages. I'm asking everyone...everyone...to slow down...and think...about...what they are...doing. Misspelled words are sometimes an indication haste makes waste. Every teacher I ever had who was competent (and that's not many) told me to be conscious of my audience. In fact, I'm reading a book by David Foster Wallace where he made that same point. Do you think that using a foreign language source is respectful to the average reader of the English Wikipedia? Is it useful to the reader? If you quote regulations again to me, I may have to start calling you Col. Flagg.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now four sources. Since we are asked not to quote regulations in this discussion, I imagine that most readers use Wikipedia to find out about things they don’t already know about, and if they are not able to read the source language themselves then an English language encyclopedia article will be all the more useful to them. Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that?
Vmavanti (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources do not have to be in English for the benefit of the reader, they are for verification. It is up to the editors of the article to translate them and put into a context the reader can access. Ifnord (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are bot responses. If all Wikipedia is doing is creating bureaucratic drones, then we might as well shut it down now. No wonder this "discussion" has been relisted. It isn't a discussion. I'm better off talking to a tree or a rock. Can we use Captcha here? Prove you're a human being who can read English. Scanning and reading are not identical, and I'm beginning to suspect that "internet reading" is really scanning and not what we do in the real world with actual books in our hands. But I'm American. I like to think. Are there any Americans left on Wikipedia?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:59, 30 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.