Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Momotenko Levitsky

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 no consensus. Lot of discussion, absolutely no consensus Star Mississippi 03:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Momotenko Levitsky

[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)

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. JSTOR turns up only two hits, as one of many names included in lists. Subject won second prize at an electronic music festival, but it doesn't appear to be a notable one. Most sources in article consists of playlists from Concertzender [ne], a formerly government-funded radio station that is now a privately-owned non-profit station which broadcasts online only. Its audience, as a result, appears to be niche. News searches turn up a brief interview from Omroep Brabant and review from De Volkskrant, but nothing else. Can't find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Netherlands, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you discriminate Concertzender, the unique radio-station as a trustful source which exists from 1982 and who made thousands of great and seldom recordings of full festivals, concerts, projects etc... , so their audience is a niche, almost nothing according for your conclusions. So let's then delete all this page of the composer because you think that Wikipedia is made by you and you may discriminate everything that is not according your "find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc"... and the composer actually not exists at all.

I will send this link with your horrible conclusions about Concertzender to the members of the broadcaster! Shame! 2-xite (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is making unilateral decisions about anything here. That's the whole point of this process, which is not based on personal feelings, but on an interpretation of WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER. You are welcome to disagree and state your reasons why. Everybody, including myself, is participating here with an open mind. Please refrain from personal attacks and keep your focus on the subject at hand. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you even not read the article, only focusing on deleting and reordering lines according your personal taste and "open mind"...

You do not have to interpret something, its all in the text, there.

para 1 of the holy criteria for WP:COMPOSER

NTR ZaterdagMatinee Series at Concertgebouw Amsterdam will never give repeatedly commissions to some DIYr or similar. The composer wrote for Netherlands Radio Choir and Radio Philharmonic Orchestra "at least" 2 notable compositions, those were performed together with names Rachmaninov or Mahler in Concertegebow Amsterdam and live broadcasted radio / video streamed... 2-xite (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets WP:ANYBIO and the WP:GNG. ANYBIO as the composer is included in the national music dictionary.[1] This biography plus other excellent sources[2][3] are sufficient for the General Notability Guideline. I further agree that the nominator talks down the Concertzender, where the composer has often been broadcasted.[4] The frequent broadcasts testify to his importance in contemporary Dutch classical music. But not only the Concertzender is talked down. Great sources are as well. Nominator writes right after after alluding to these: but nothing else. Why would one do that? Next they write Can't find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc.. This is essentially the same WP:HERRING as the beginning, Subject does not meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. But WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER are not the only track by which an individual is notable! Now everyone who nominates an article wants to write a compelling intro. In general, when the subject is notable, this often gets into talking accomplishments and sources down and sidetracking the reader. In such cases, the branch solution is to phrase introductions more carefully (important especially for BLP!) yet the root solution is not to nominate notable subjects! gidonb (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "allude" to anything, I stated the sources in question outright. With respect to Concertzender, they went from being a government-funded station that was broadcast nationally to a private internet station. The fact that their funding was cut suggests that the Dutch government, at least, found their influence to already be niche. It would be different if subject's music was broadcast regularly from major national stations elsewhere, but this isn't the case. Moreover, subject's notability, such as it is, seems to rest on composing music that rides the coattails of other more famous composers and works. Ultimately, I disagree with your opinion, but thank you kindly for your input all the same. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With alluding I meant not the downplaying of specific sources but the more general discussion of the Concertzender. Here repeated. So the Netherlands has seen its government budgets for culture slashed, especially under the First Rutte cabinet and the digital revolution hasn't skipped the Netherlands either. It's not part of my WP:GNG coverage but does speak to the general importance of the composer. As 2-xite mentioned before me, nothing wrong with the Concertzender. And even IF there was, it would not affect the notability per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful answers. Thank you.

I wish to add another very important quality about the Concertzender. The database of this Broadcast is amazing in its variation and the possibility to listen the recordings on demand even many years after the public releases. There is no public sender I can compare that keeps sharing the music-joy with the audience for so long instead of removing / hiding it after few years. So the amount of the listeners spread over time is really huge and is far from the used term "niche". 2-xite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm glad that you enjoy your music supply! Again, I found the composer to be notable under the WP:GNG, regardless of Concertzender, and the nominator to belittle valid sources from Omroep Brabant and the Volkskrant. It is a fact that the composer appears in the national music dictionary and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. This baseless nomination is best withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there were some more important sources added to approve the General Notability Guideline and the importance of the Dutch contemporary music. The orchestral work "Madame en Noir" was the opening-piece of the 25th edition of one of the most outstanding festivals in the Netherlands at that time. It's also striking that the composer has Ukrainian roots (born in Lviv), studied in Russia, but most of the time in the Netherlands and from Dutch Nationality, so additionally to all musical values it may be obvious to vindicate this artist on Wikipedia. 87.110.183.188 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 27 April 2022 (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.