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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Woof[edit]

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

Barbara Woof (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)

No independent sources provided in article. A search finds no sources that contributes to WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published work, not may have been. Composers are reviewed through their work, just like academics, writers, and other musicians. Nominating a Dutch 20th century figure without checking Delpher is not recommended. Now that it has been pointed out to you that she has been covered a lot, it's better to withdraw than to argue. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
may have been, in reference to the compositions, as you haven't provided any sources including significant coverage of the compositions.
In reference to her, WP:MUSICBIO #1 doesn't support considering individuals notable on the basis of coverage of their work. I'm also not certain that MUSICBIO applies here; the article says she is a composer, but MUSICBIO only applies to musicians or ensembles. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Composers, conductors, instrumentalists, and singers are different types of musicians. You never looked at Delpher. I have provided you with the link. Now please open the sources and read about the composer and her work. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instrumentalists and singers are, but composers and conductors are not typically classified as musicians. Regarding Delpher, I'm asking you to provide a direct link to the articles that you were so convinced by; the ones I have looked at don't provide significant coverage of either Woof or her work. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing musicians with performers. Musician: One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.[2] Also please note that, in this case, the bar PER source is nontrivial coverage, NOT significant coverage. I.e. REAL analysis and not just listings or other passing mentions. The totality of the nontrivial coverage is significant coverage. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning appears to vary depending on which dictionary you look at; Cambridge, Collins. Looking at the examples provided (bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.), which are all limited to those who perform music, I believe this guideline meant the narrower definition, not the broader one.
However, whether it applies isn't relevant. MUSICBIO #1 requires coverage of the subject, not of their works, and so far you've only been able to provide search results, not actual coverage of her or her work. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:CREATIVE#4 "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." PamD 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. However, we don't even have sources showing critical attention, let alone significant critical attention - and WP:CREATIVE only makes a person likely to be notable, it doesn't presume notability. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE #4 is equally fine with me. We are usually not strict on the extreme with historic or retired women professionals. Note that the two opinions above me only refer to technicalities and should be discounted. The article was translated in 2010 from Nlwiki, where it is a stable entry since 2007. Ten years later, the translator got into serious trouble for matters totally unrelated to this article. Apparently, in 2020, they got carried away in discussions and abused socks to gain the upper hand. Bad but irrelevant to this AfD. Books that do not include a biography are also irrelevant when other books carry her biography. gidonb (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As is evident from the sources in the article, she also meets WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. I haven't reviewed every source you've added to the article, but of the half dozen I looked at I didn't find any containing WP:SIGCOV. Can you link the best WP:THREE? BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best one. She is included in the Australian national dictionary of composers. The rest are reviews and do not need SIGCOV. Just, overall, need to contain significant critical attention for Woof. To put it mildly, no problem there :-). gidonb (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the source, but looking at your reference I believe it contains the following:

Barbara WOOF Date/s 2 September 1958– Place of Birth Sydney, NSW Education BMus (Hons), U of Sydney, 1981; Royal Conservatory, The Hague, Netherlands; Institute of Sonology, Utrecht. Peter Sculthorpe; Jan van Vlijmen; Jan Boerman. Dorothy Walker, Sharon Raschke, pft; Peter Walmsley, tpt. Fellowships and Residencies Res, SSO, 1992. Prizes and Awards University Travelling S'ship, 1982; First Prize, Martin Codax' Composition Competition, Spain, 1985. Commissions Fonds voor de Scheppende Toonkunst, Netherlands, 1986–95. Employment Utrecht School of Arts, 1988–. Other Lives in [the] Netherlands. 1 1/1 Select List of Works Banshee's Dance, 1992, orch, 3 min 15 sec. [etc.]

Such a list isn't WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only part of the biographic entry. gidonb (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the aspect that you believe constitutes WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire entry. I brought only part of it. gidonb (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it is more of the same and doesn't contain any independent prose then it is not WP:SIGCOV. If there is any independent prose can you quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. SIGCOV is not a focus of ether. You keep arguing instead of withdrawing. gidonb (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided an argument for her works having won significant critical attention, merely an assertion that they have. So far I see no reason to believe they have. As for ANYBIO, how does she meet that? BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the articles that contain said significant critical attention. She has an entry in the national dictionary of composers. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at half a dozen of the sources the only critical attention I could find of her work was Moreover, she wrote a beautiful work with 'Canzone', which has a delicate timbre and a clear structure, offering the orchestra an ideal opportunity to immediately indicate how the cards have been shuffled this year. Given that "significant critical attention" is quite a high bar - I would expect multiple extensive reviews of her work in high quality sources - I don't think it is met.
She has an entry in the national dictionary of composers. ANYBIO requires an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (in Australia, that would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography); it doesn't apply to specialized national biographical dictionaries like the Biographical Directory of Australian Composers. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have retrieved the text from only one article. As noted, the totality is significant. gidonb (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I have understood correctly, you are saying that that there are several reviews of comparable size to the one I quoted, and collectively they constitute significant critical attention? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Comparable or more extensive. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the sock puppet investigation. My own search can't find anything satisfying WP:GNG. Karnataka (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (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.
More