Talk:Svitlana Azarova

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

2007/02/13 I decided to create this page now Svitlana is getting more and more known in the world of New Music. A google of svitlana OR svetlana azarova will give a good number of hits including one from the 1976 births at the french wikipedia - a fact that made me revisit this page after the 2005 ruling that she was an NN. I hope whoever will review her entry will decide to let it stay. Thanks Michel

Added many reliable references[edit]

Dear Wikipedians

Please let me know what else I can do to make this entry acceptable Mplungjan (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not as yet see any references that establish notability, and it is doubtful whether any items added so far constitute reliable sources. So far, there are only weblinks to commissioning organizations, publishers' catalogs, CD-promotion sites, and a GENECO self-published biography page with no content. Still needed are at least two third-party source: newspaper reviews, journal articles, entries in recognized reference sources (New Grove, Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, the Komponisten der Gegenwart: Loseblatt-Lexikon, etc.), or even stories in popular news magazines. Thinking that a Dutch-educated and domiciled, Dutch-published composer would most likely have reviews in the Dutch press, I have searched the online archives of De Telegraaf, De Standaard, and De Volkskrant, as well as several multiple-newspaper databases without result.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can repeat a question from another wikipedian first time I published her wiki page: How notable is notable? Svitlana is not in Grove or MGG yet. She also did not write the national anthem of either Ukraine or The Netherlands. However she is being performed more and more worldwide. Would you in the mean time be very kind and explain to me why a link her published work (soon to be several more - they are being published as we speak) to the biggest Dutch publishing house would not constitute a reliable source? And the reason she is not in De Telegraaf, De Standaard, and De Volkskrant is because she has so far not been performed in such Dutch venues that would warrant a review in these publications. As the Dutch minister of Culture told her and other contemporary Dutch composers to their faces: You compose non-hummable music. I do not understand why a reference to her membership of the Dutch composer union cannot be to an almost empty page at GENECO. That they have not found time to enter more information should not be held against her. The link at the Living Composers Project is no longer to a page there but to her official homepage since it was agreed with the editors of the Living Composers Project that her homepage would be more up to date. Ditto at the Ircams Brahms database. The alumni pages at the Amsterdam's Conservatory are not complete, but I have been in contact with them and they promised to add her soonest. By the way - did you visit her homepage and if you did, I believe it is written in such a way it is useful as a first-hand source. And a personal question: Do you like her music? Thank you again for your time. PS: I added more references and two more sources - one an encyclopedia Mplungjan (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer at least a few of your many questions. Wikipedia has certain guidelines for what constitutes notability and a reliable source. I suggest you read those guidelines, which I think you will find helpful. A link to a composer's publisher (however large) is generally not sufficient to establish notability because they have a vested interest in promoting the composer's work. Naturally, no publisher will say a composer they represent is anything less than "a legend in his/her time", or "an icon of contemporary music", or some such thing. The fact that Azarova "has so far not been performed in such Dutch venues that would warrant a review in these publications" is itself eloquent testimony to non-notability. (The Dutch Minister of Culture's dismissive remarks, on the other hand, might all by themselves help to establish notability, if only they have been published somewhere! Such a Philistinistic rejection almost always means the provocation comes from meaningful work!) The problem with the GENECO reference is that it appears to be meant to verify some details of her biography, not just her membership in the organization (which, again, is hardly a criterion for notability). Azarova's homepage is, of course, a very useful first-hand source, but to establish notability, third-party sources are needed. The encyclopedia entry you added is the best reference so far, but I do not have ready access to it to investigate its contents (I can read just enough Czech to work out the contents of a dictionary entry). As to your personal question, I have no opinion at all about Azarova's music, because I have never heard any of it. Even if I knew and disliked it intensely (or, much worse, felt entirely indifferent toward it), this would have no bearing at all to the notability and reliable-source issues.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. You can find a 1 hour streaming programme from the Dutch ConcertZender or visit the listen page at her site where you will also find two youtube performances of her clarinet pieces. As for notability in Holland, it is on its way. I do not see any Peacock words at Donemus, and I expect they publish her because they find her music interesting. Another 7 of her works are at the editors at Donemus and will be published soon. I will continuously update the entry to reflect such changes in visibility and notability. Thanks again Mplungjan (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good promotion of Ukrainian girl-friend. Keep on!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.209.95.62 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Svitlana Azarova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Svitlana_Azarova&oldid=1205558232"