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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hauke Harder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable, unreferenced Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kiel.de link is simply an announcement of an exhibition. Dlabtot (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What about the other two links? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee what do you think? Here's one: [1], here's the other: [2]. One doesn't even work, the other is just a 'program note' with no indication that it is a published reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not unreferenced, just referenced atrociously. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is unreferenced because it contains no references to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established. لennavecia 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, if someone rewrites this article. There certainly are some (German) sources, showing that he's around for the past twenty years and had some notable exhibitions. [3] [4] [5] [6] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a foreign language doesn't mean sources don't have to be WP:RS. Amazon.de? haukeharder.net? Announcements? Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not the source but shows it, take a closer look, please. The artist's website shows several exhibitions, information about them can be found on several other websites, too. Try Google. It's an AfD here, so I kept it short, ya know. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of any reliable sources that establish notability, you should provide them. So far it looks like they don't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just look at above links. He had several exhibitions and concerts in notable art galleries and institutes of big German and Austrian cities [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to post all these irrelevant announcements and program notes? No one is denying the fact that he exists and is producing work. The question is whether he is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our notability guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. ;-) Well, if you would just take a look at the linked pages... Some more: neue musikzeitung spex [14] named along John Cage, what? - and we didn't even take a look at his former career as a scientist 29 publications... BTW: Aren't you guys always so much into awards? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! In an article about Hildegard Kleeb, his name was mentioned! And the same article mentioned John Cage! Isn't that special. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have subjected myself to the tedium of examining all the links you've provided. It has been an enormous waste of my time. Please refrain from accusing me of not looking at them. They are all just announcements or brief mentions or self-published. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. These do not meet the criteria of significant coverage. Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its now referenced. Its a pity that classical composers to not get the press hype that follows rock musicians or fast food franchises, but his WP:Verified body of work seems to tickle at WP:CREATIVE and rings a bell on WP:COMPOSER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific about the reason you believe he meets one of the 6 criteria of WP:COMPOSER? Which one does he meet based on which WP:RS? By the way, 'having a body of work' is not one of our notability criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't feel THIS meets criteria 6? And is every hit here worthless? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming that is a "standard reference book"? Where's the evidence for that? Dlabtot (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of sources now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious if you examined the links that were added to the page to see if, in your opinion, they constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Could you point out to me one of the links that fit this criteria? tia Dlabtot (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I reason as follows:

  The references supplied between them satisfy WP:V (because it's shown that he exists and is a composer) and WP:RS (because he receives at least a passing mention in reliable sources; the first one I looked at, kiel.de, is clearly over the bar as a RS).

  It remains to be shown that Hauke Harder satisfies WP:N. However, WP:PRESERVE trumps WP:N because the former is a policy and the latter is a mere guideline. This is why Uncle G wrote this:

  "Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia. It means that the subject is not an appropriate one for an article."—Uncle G in On Notability

  In other words, if Harder is judged to fail WP:N, then the onus is on those who argue that Hauke Harder's article should be deleted, to show where the verifiably-sourced material that's here should be merged to. You do not get to cut reliably-sourced, verifiable information out of Wikipedia!

  But a merge is a "keep" outcome.

  It follows that this discussion should be closed as keep and a WP:N-based merge discussed on the article's talk page, or at WP:PM, in the normal way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability policy specifically requires 'significant coverage'. 'Passing mentions' don't clear this bar. Dlabtot (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See my analysis of the references at Reliable Sources Noticeboard.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete - I disagree with S Marshal when he says that WP:PRESERVE trumps WP:N... My take is that WP:PRESERVE assumes that Notability has been established in the first place. The article in question does not establish that the subject is Notable (while fairly heavily cited, most of the citations are either self-published or are promotional in nature.) What the article needs is reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject, sources that talk about the subject. A passing mention in a programe or promotion is not enough. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMPOSER compositions played in many contemporary classical concerts pohick (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER doesn't say that. Dlabtot (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. see Culture Prize, and Walter Zimmermann

Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list - see Heather O'Donnell

Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.

Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (what i was referring to)

Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

granted not in Grove's, but it's a matter of time pohick (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous connections to Zimmermann and O'Donnell: how do they make Harder notable?
Has not established a tradition or school.
Melodies? Tunes? Standards? Can you upload a .WAV file of you wistling them?
Frequently covered in publications: are they printed in invisible ink?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (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.