Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 11: Difference between revisions

11 April 2021

Tobias Broeker

Tobias Broeker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

In the German deletion discussion (btw filed by the same IP) it becomes clear that this is not a self-promotion, but a musicologically highly relevant work, since several encyclopedically relevant contemporary composers around the world are represented by this editor! There is a difference between an author who publishes (promotes) his own work and a music publisher who edits and publishes the works of countless composers from whom he has been commissioned to do so. This fact in itself indicates sufficient encyclopedic relevance. The editor has 7,694 publications listed on WorldCat and got referenced at least in a total of six libraries within Germany and Switzerland. His work was, among many other projects, the basis for the album D'Indy - Dupuy: Sonates, recorded in the studio of the legendary piano master Stephen Paulello in HiRes-Audio (also distributed by jpc). Furthermore, no monetary (advertising) intentions are discernible, neither in the WP-article, nor on the website of the sheet music publisher. See Google cache for the last version. Thus please restore it in the article namespace (for a regular deletion discussion if necessary) or in my subpages for the further review, thx! Uwe Martens (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn, send to AfD. Someone wants to discuss. Judging from the google cache and de:Tobias Bröker, it looks worth a discussion. Possibly, defer for the resultof the native language Wikipedia deletion discussion at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._April_2021#Tobias_Bröker. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse as the original nominator 'a musicological highly relevant work, since several encyclopedically relevant contemporary composers all over the world are represented by this editor'? Absolute load of nonsense: if I write a book about Beethoven am I suddenly notable? There are virtually no proper third-party sources that speak about Tobias Broeker as a notable 'musicologist' or 'publisher'. There's a reason why the paragraph on 'publishing' had no external links. Broeker doesn't become notable just by putting his work on his own website and writing his own Wikipedia article: there needs to be some solid third-party coverage. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

💡 Reading recommendation for getting an idea about the difference between an author, who publishes his own work, and a music publisher, who edits and publishes the work of countless composers! As I wrote you in the German discussion: You shouldn't make judgments in areas you obviously have no clue about! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add here that Uwe Martens has taken the same attitude toward me, that I can't have a valid opinion because not agreeing with him means I don't know enough. – Athaenara ✉ 08:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that I have too less edits in the EN:WP for initiating/supporting an admin reconfirmation process due to presumptuous and inappropriate behavior! But thanks for the confirmation of my opinion! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Uwe, I'm very familiar with music and musicology. No need to be rude. Let me use a clearer analogy: if I 're-type' a piece by Beethoven and put it as a download on my personal website, that doesn't automatically entitle me to a Wikipedia article. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)