Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dexter Edge
=[[Dexter Edge]]=
:{{la|Dexter Edge}} – (
:({{Find sources|Dexter Edge}})
Should be deleted as non-notable. All references on Google are to subject's own blogs or entries in LinkedIn, etc, except for Wikipedia references which all seem to have been made by the editor who created the article. No reliable citations for notability or to substantiate any material in the article, E.g. 'authority on Mozart’s autograph manuscripts and an accomplished pianist'. Whilst subject appears to have written a few articles and to hold an academic post, these are not sufficient criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. Smerus (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Seven articles archived in JSTOR is far above the norm for a musicological researcher; his articles are heavily cited there and he's extremely well regarded in Bach/Mozart circles, being invited to nearly every major conference I can think of there. On the weak side for musicological notability, he doesn't have a permanent academic post (though being a senior appointee at PHI is almost significant enough itself). Musicology is not a discipline where you can expect to find free evidence and articles on the web. Reading through the journals in the field makes it clear that Edge's output and notability is clearly above the average for the field. I went through the list of Cat. American Musicologists a few months ago for a discussion on WP:PROF and identified 8 that I think should be brought to AfD (I'll send the list offline, if anyone'd like) and several borderline cases, but Edge was not an "edge case" by any means. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
::Replying to Qworty -- how does he fail? it's not a vote, it's a discussion. I had gone with Smerus's assessment that there's nothing online but blogs and LinkedIn entries, but googling I see that even on the Net, there is some evidence of notability: [http://www.omifacsimiles.com/brochures/moz_noz.html] (OMI, btw, is the premiere seller of musical books and doesn't make full pages for just anything); [http://www.aproposmozart.com/Link%20-%20Mozart%20in%20Vienna,2d%20version,4.6.07.pdf]. I think it's significant that even those making far out of mainstream arguments feel they need to refute/cite Edge: [http://www.mozartsmtm.org/WEDFLOW/wedflow.html]. Library of Congress lecture [http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0510/concerts.html]. Board of Directors, Mozart Society of America [http://mozartsocietyofamerica.org/publications/newsletter/archive/MSA-JAN-07.pdf]. Citations in [http://books.google.com/books?id=3IbFKqsNZzsC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=dexter+edge+mozart&source=bl&ots=jj7EZbi0Ik&sig=-2-dmKh69BUtRUV-76x9ZGRo3qs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QQNlUJblFqyr0AHU5YGgBQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=dexter%20edge%20mozart&f=false Google Books] and [http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad/06-2/5_Public-Works_57-66.pdf Israeli online journals]; citations that he is responsible for a [http://www.readperiodicals.com/201203/2595823041.html "changed consensus" around Don Giovanni]. I think the notability is well-established even with FUTON sources. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Methinks Michael Scott Cuthbert doth protest too much. 'Seven articles archived in JSTOR is far above the norm for a musicological researcher'....what is exactly is this norm, and who has calculated it? Seven articles in JSTOR makes 'notable'? Says who? - In that case thousands of people (including in fact myself) would be 'notable' and eligible for bios on Wikipedia - let's be sensible about this. In the context of aboslutely nothing out there except the comments gleaned up by Michael Scott Cuthbert, Mr. Edge is not notable 'notable' in any normal understanding of the word - or in Wikipedia terms. Please look at Wikipedia:BIO#Academics or Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) and check if he meets a single one of the crtieria there.--Smerus (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I think that there are thousands of people eligible for biographies in Wikipedia -- aren't there? (988,000 in Wikiproject Biography). :-) But leaving that aside, are seven articles in JSTOR in the humanities (which represents only a fraction of important journals in the humanities) really that little? Your argument involves the personal reflection that by that criteria you'd be eligible -- the leading question is do you have seven in JSTOR? I couldn't find them (that's not a slight, David -- I think that your excellent Cambridge University Press book which I enjoyed reading and have heard spoken of very highly would make you notable by the WP:Prof guidelines [which I do know well, having organized the votes in the latest discussion for rewriting]; the wording of the summary criteria we decided on was not is this person a superstar, but (as you well know, but others might not) "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" I think of Dexter Edge as one of the leaders in the field (not at the pinnacle, but quite high, so that might be why I protest muchily. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I appreciate that flattery can get you (almost) anywhere :-} but remain unconvinced.--Smerus (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::: Afterthought - though it is true than on the basis of what you write I should be unlikely to protest so much as to flag for AfD an article which anyone wrote about me. :-} --Smerus (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the two important editorships are enough.` DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG, and because of [http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2005-29053 Worldcat holdings], he passes the Prof test. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
: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.