Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Mary Francine Whittle

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mary Francine Whittle

Chris Mary Francine Whittle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this looks as if she should be notable, I have failed in finding any indepth sources about her. Her name is often simply rendered as Chris Whittle, but there are others with the same name who are more notable, which makes searching harder. Her full name only gives Wikipedia mirrors as results[1]. The sources given in the article are very brief mentions, and nothing better seems to be available.

So it looks as if she fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I just rechecked all the sources today (1/21/21) and they very specifically mention "Chris Mary Francine Whittle." I wrote the article because she is on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_dictionary/International_encyclopedia_of_women_composers. The whole point of this project is to educate people about female composers and their works, hopefully so more of their music will be played. Deleting the article returns them to obscurity. T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Six months ago I would have vigorously fought for this article's retention. I've learned a lot since then. Wikipedia is not perfect. Its policies and guidelines are mostly situational and highly discriminatory but simple. The criteria is plainly written. The subject must receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources to be notable, period. The same basic story written in several sources, albeit reliable, does not constitute multiple. I may disagree with the guideline. I would probably be the first to vote to alter it but it is what we have and the only criteria we are instructed to follow for AfD's. The subject fails
  Wolf 14:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Sadly any newspapers reviewing her performances or compositions are in the black hole between British Library Newspapers which goes up to 1950 and NewsBank which goes back up to 25 years. There are likely to be umpteen press articles out there. But she's not in Grove (could be under-representation of women being perpetuated). She has been included in two biographical dictionaries of women composers, which goes some way towards notability. I fear that we may have to wait for an obituary for more reliably-sourced information about this person. PamD 16:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm going to go with
  WP:GNG here, with reference to the two encyclopedia entries. GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". "Significant coverage" and "detail" should not be confused with length. Brief encyclopedia refs satisfy the criterion. The two encyclopedia refs addresses the topic directly Y in sufficient detail that 'no original research is needed to extract the content'. Y One does not get put in a paper encyclopedia b/c one is not notable. One does not get put in two paper encyclopedia's, ditto. Further, it is inconceivable that someone who toured for 20 years and was besides a composer, did not amass press to which we have no access. THe purpose of this encyclopedia is to inform. This article usefull informs us of her life and work, and, provides information on the composer for users who come across any of her compositions - which are still sold today and thus likely to be of some current interest. A user on the Boosey & Hawkes Sheet Music Shop (ref 7) is well within their rights when coming across Intermezzi, opus 32, to wish to be able to find out more about its composer. Finally I note that a composer having opus numbers is again an indicator that she has been found notable enough for someone to catalogue and index her work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: Playing devils advocate for a moment, while I agree that "significant coverage" does not necessarily equate to length of the sources content, the criteria also states that generally it is expected there be multiple sources. In reading the notes, multiple does not simply mean numerically but intellectually, meaning, multiple numerical sources repeating the same information or close to the same information are not multiple sources intellectually and therefore can not be considered a means to judge notability minus other intellectually different sources even if said sources are reliable, are secondary and do offer "significant coverage". They would all be considered one source. That's why lists and other encyclopedia's are so difficult to use for notability confirmation within Wikipedia. Multiple lists and encyclopedia entries tend to say the same information. --

Wolf 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• The first one isn't really an encyclopedia, but a biobibliography with extremely short entries, and doesn't even get her name right[2]. Which only leaves the second one as a decent source[3]. Wrt opus numbers, any evidence that this isn't simply how she titles her own works?
  Fram (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Meets criteria #3 of
  WP:ANYBIO, as she has an entry in a Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication, per her inclusion in the International encyclopedia of women composers. To my mind, this and the other encyclopedia is enough to indicate notability. Some of the sourcing in the article could be trimmed, such as the "Boosey" link to purchase sheet music. The article may always exist as a stub, but there is nothing wrong with that. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Per PamD, we really need evidence of performances and ideally recordings, or other coverage. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not surprisingly, newspaper reports from this period are not accessible on the internet but from the information and sources already included in the article, this is a recognized composer.--Ipigott (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: agree with above Keep arguments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added two references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm going with keep, as in the International encyclopedia of women composers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She has an entry in Flavie Roquet, Lexicon: Vlaamse componisten geboren na 1800 (Roeselare, Roularta Books, 2007, 946p,
  ISBN 978-90-8679-090-6). I have never seen this book, but in a description I found "Each composer is given a two-part lemma in the Lexicon: the biographical details are followed by a description of the compositions and often a stylistic-aesthetic estimate. After the actual biography, the bibliography (where the information was found) follows so that further searches can be made later." Davidships (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as she has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography so it meets the 3rd criteria of ANYBIO. Empire AS ^Talk!
  • {{ping|Empire AS}} I don't she has an entry in any "dictionary of national biography"? Not asking you to change your "keep", as it seems that further searches by others have found more sources (not a lot, but enough), but your reasoning seems wrong (unless I missed something).
    Fram (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    Fram (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• ISBN 978-90-8679-090-6). Your reply was a bit confusing to me especially the lines I don't she has an entry in any "dictionary of national biography"?, something seemed to be wrong. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 11:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well, she has an entry in a "similar" publication (though a highly specialized one). Most countries have one or two "dictionaries of national biography" where having an entry is considered to be highly significant (although some of these dictionaries are more based on the personal obscure interests of a few contributors than on actual importance it seems, but I digress). Whittle is not included in any "dictionary of national biography" though (as far as anyone has found), and claiming that she has been is very confusing. Being included in a specialized, not general national, biographical dictionary may or may not be enough to pass ANYBIO: this depends on the actual work the subject is in (is it some high quality work, is the entry somewhat substantial, ...). In this case, it probably is sufficient, as she is in more than one such work. But none of these works is a "dictionary of national biography" and shouldn't be labeled as such.
  Fram (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG. Inclusion in a national encyclopedia or equivalent is sufficient for any body. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2021 (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.