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. Participants generally feel that there is enough sources covering this composition to demonstrate its notability even if its initial state was very brief. Substantial sources were added and a significant expansion by No Swan So Fine has resulted in a strong consensus that this is worth an article of its own. Any further concerns seem to be at most minor content issues. ~ mazca talk 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation (composition)

[edit]

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

Confirmation (composition) (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)

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Mostly untouched since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many years do you think is enough time to wait before acting on an "article" that is two sentences long and unsourced? You think eleven years isn't enough time? How many years do you suggest? If you have other sources, by all means add them. Write the article if you want. Write it or delete it. There are no other options. Don't assume that mythical, imaginary people exist somewhere to do the work for us. Saying "this is a Charlie Parker composition" isn't an argument. It's a fact that's irrelevant to the discussion. Simply because a person is notable doesn't mean everything that they do is notable. Are there articles for every Charlie Parker song and album? Of course not. That would be foolish.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked a specific question, relating to whether the existence of a multi-page analysis of the subject of this article in a book is compatible with the rationale of this AfD. The above paragraph does not appear to address that. AllyD (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not obligated to answer your questions. When do you answer mine? When does anyone? How often I have sent messages to people only to be greeted with silence? To your point: Did you find a source? Good for you! Barnstar on the way! Now how many sources are required for a decent article? It's not written in stone, but I can tell you with certainty it's more than one. Didn't you learn that in school? Many people here have college degrees. What happened? How many years do you think is enough time to wait before acting on an "article" that is two sentences long and unsourced? You think eleven years isn't enough time? How many years do you suggest? These are serious questions. They aren't rhetorical or sarcastic. You can rely on me to be direct rather than suggestive. Call it an American trait.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You answered your own question below: "There's no deadline." Rlendog (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there more choices between the extremes of Eleven Years and We Must Move On This Minute?Vmavanti (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eleven years is not the extreme. As you say below, there is no deadline. Not 11 years, not 15 years, and obviously not we must do it this minute. If the subject is notable, a stub can remain until someone expands it. Of course, if there is incorrect information in the stub (and reliable sources would help determine that) the misinformation should be removed as soon as it is found. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is mixing up "unsourced" with "non-notable", and that person's last comment above clearly crosses the line into WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON. No need to waste anyone's time on how the second of those is merely an essay. I will also point out WP:NEXIST, which says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." If this article has been unsourced for 11 years, that simply means that no volunteer made the effort to find sources and add them to the article. That could very well be done now. In this debate, AllyD has the only convincing argument so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that when I said "Call it an American trait" (about myself) this comment "clearly crosses the line into WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON". You are accusing me of being "uncivil" because of that comment? How? Whom am I insulting? 350 million Americans? Hardly. It's a compliment. I can't respond to comments that make no sense. I really do pay close attention to words and make an honest to understand what is being written without reading between the lines.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let the church say Amen.Vmavanti (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely baffled. I don't know how to make it any plainer than to quote from the documentation: "This is an essay...It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is NOT ONE OF WIKIPEDIA'S POLICIES OR GUIDELINES. End of story.Vmavanti (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to do this carefully and go over these references one at a time. What's the hurry? We waited eleven years already. Reference 1 links to page 69 of Yardbird Suite by Lawrence Koch. But "Confirmation" doesn't appear on page 69. So much for Reference 1. Reference 2 links to page 94 of Charlie Parker, Composer by Henry Martin. Two brief paragraphs, probably acceptable but not especially revealing. Reference 3 links to the cover of the book Jazz Theory rather than a particular page number and is therefore unacceptable. Reference 4 makes the same mistake, except it links to the cover of Charlie Parker, Composer. Reference 5 makes the same mistake of linking to a cover rather than content. So does Reference 6. So does reference 7. So does reference 8. So does reference 9. So does reference 10. Reference 11 is unacceptable because it merely links to the home page of the All About Jazz web site. Reference 12 links to content, and "Confirmation" does appear in three places on that page, here: "But the past is most obviously echoed in the use of Parker's "Au Privave" and "Confirmation"; here: The eponymous "Stratus Seekers" track is a latter-day comment on bop's rapid unison themes, quite different from the Sextet's subsequent treatment of "Au Privave" and the Stuttgart "Confirmation"; and here: "But, despite stinging contributions to "Confirmation" by Loewgren and Pitts, Don Cherry, the guest star, and Russell inevitably dominate."
Let's stop and think about this. Out of 12 references, maybe 2 or three are being used correctly. And even those are thin on content. I have seen this very mistake many times on Wikipedia. Where I grew up ignorance is not a sin. Nor is there shame in being wrong. Nor is it a contest. Nor is anyone's life riding on it. Where it gets to be a problem is when people don't learn from their mistakes. Then you wind up in a loop. Those who need help can ask. Or read the documentation. Why haven't others analyzed these reference to the degree that I have? OK, they just appeared within the past couple days. But why instead is there cheerleading about how great these sources are and enthusiasm about how we can move on and stop this absurd business about deletion? People here have not been shy with their criticisms of me, how wrong I am. One person even alleged that Articles for Deletion is "not the correct venue" for discussing the deletion of this article. Really? It's a mad world, my masters.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking reference 1. I don't know, but perhaps the page numbers are off because he's citing a different revision of the book than what's on Google. HERE I see that the book does talk about "Confirmation". So fix it, someone. wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Martin analyses the piece from pages 94 to 103. The fact that Martin, a Professor of Music at Rutgers University, should devote 9 pages to this piece should confirm how importrant "Confirmation" is...The Koch refrence is used correctly later in the article, it is found on page 249. I've expanded all the other 'linking to cover' references, even though the page numbers were within the citation anyway. It is unclear from the Google Books upload of the Giddins book which page it is so here is a link for you to verify it. I've removed the All About Jazz reference and the erroneous Koch. We really should move on, there have been ample references to the importance of this well loved piece over the 75 years since it was composed. I do wish that you would search for and add the sources yourself next time. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We really should move on". Huh? What? Why? We've had eleven years. What's another week or two? No one was in a hurry to fix this article eleven years ago. Or last week. But now you want to move on? Why? What would be the benefit of that? Move on in what sense? No, that's not how Wikipedia works. There's no deadline. We take as long as it takes to get things right. I encourage everyone to be more careful and scrupulous when it comes to sourcing. It's v. important. I'm not kidding. This is someone else's work and it deserves to be treated properly. We will take as long as it takes. I encourage everyone to try to avoid becoming emotionally attached to Wikipedia articles. It's not yours. Stop making lists like "I did this" and "I did that" and me me me mine mine mine. It takes a village, remember? You didn't build that, remember? Let's all be like a bunch of Fonzis. You dig?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that Confirmation does appear on p. 69 of Koch - "According to the records the Gillespie group made without Parker before leaving the coast, the repertoire also included Confirmation, a Parker tune [...]." NSSF, you weren't even wrong about that one. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia disallows Selected Discographies and Partial List of Recordings. If Selected, who selects? How? Why? From where? On what criteria? If Partial, why is it Partial? Is there a complete list? Where is it? Have you seen it? Then how do you know it's a partial list? The other editor in the jazz project and I have discussed these lists many times. We have tried to deal with articles about songs and the the inevitable lists of cover versions that get tacked onto them ad infinitum. We have course been met with lots of resistance and lack of cooperation.Vmavanti (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's evidently not every recording of "Confirmation", but is a representative list for the reader. Other jazz standards have similar subsections called "Other versions"/"Notable recordings" etc. I used the term 'partial' as any tilt towards completionism is impossible with something as dynamic as recorded music. The list has orignated over several years through the efforts of numerous editors. I think there are many other editors in the jazz project, of which I am proud to call myself one. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This opens into the larger matter. Yes, but some people do have completionism in mind, and these people object to any compromise or omission. They might be collectors following the guidelines of that field. If one person says "partial" on Wikipedia, then a lot of people start using it. Perhaps this is one of those rare times when people become excessively scrupulous and precise. I don't share their view, not in a project like Wikipedia with all its untidiness. I guess if someone reads the word "Discography" as "Complete Discography", then often that's not the case, especially in jazz where discographies can be complicated. It is very difficult to get accurate information. Different years, labels, countries, album covers, songs: all for the same album. I don't read the word "discography" as complete. I don't write them with that intent. I try to put enough albums there to be sufficient. I know there will always be someone who disagrees or complains, esp. IP editors I can't talk to. I know there are some who see that section as an opportunity for puffery and inflation. One could argue the word "partial" is unnecessary, given that practically all of these jazz discographies are partial, so the word is redundant. I've been trying to clean it up. In the jazz project, we have talked and argued about these matters many times. We agreed it's best to keep it simple and stick with "Discography". It becomes a question of moderation and how to balance too many rules with too few. I wish some of these IP editors were as precise about the body of the article as they are about the discography.
Vmavanti (talk)
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