Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clustering of composers

Clustering of composers

Clustering of composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Essentially, original research and a kind of personal essay, along with the conflict of interest issues inherent when the article's author is also the author of the only two cites. A search of GBooks and GScholar reveals that the author seems to be the only person who uses the titular phrase and is apparently trying to promote its validity here. (I was aware of similar searches by Tokyogirl79 but have also performed my own.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - this odd WP:POV WP:ESSAY fragment is written by a user with the same name as one of the authors of each of the two papers cited, so it appears we have a WP:COI here, with the suspicion this is a promotion. The same user (in one of his other 3 edits) added a cite to another of his papers on the same topic to Geographical cluster. No independent sources found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, then Merge to Composer, and then redirect. The material may not be enough for a stand-alone article, but it is certainly worthy of inclusion in Composer. This is most definitely not original research or an "essay". It has been published in a peer-reviewed journals and although the exact phrase may not occur frequently, the concept/phenomenon has been studied and noted by others as well. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. The COI argument has no bearing whatsoever on whether reliably sourced and useful, encyclopedic information should be incorporated into Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – As Voceditenore has shown, it's not WP:POV but part of the scientific discourse. Wikipedia has many articles where academic authors have contributed and cited their own papers. This is generally a good thing™. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, V. hasn't shown anything of the sort. It could easily be POV or even spam, we don't know, and it certainly runs the risk of being thought WP:UNDUE or otherwise unbalanced, as the article gives precisely no weight to anyone else's published material. Further, it doesn't cite "multiple, independent sources", but essentially one dependent source, namely himself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply With all due respect, this article reports the results of a series quantitative analyses referenced by articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. I've just shown you that similar studies and works have been done, with similar results. The fact that the article contents could be improved by expansion and the addition of further sources, which I have shown clearly exist, is not an argument for deletion at all. I suggest you read the other sources I linked above before saying we have no idea whether this is "POV or spam". Incidentally, having an your work used as a reference in Wikipedia, let alone having written a WP article doesn't make a blind bit of difference to whether an academic gets tenure. Nor are they paid for their articles in academic journals. Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)