Talk:Wolf Matthias Friedrich

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

Stub[edit]

As of today, the article consists of three sentences and mentions only one activity in 2000. Much more information can now be found here: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Friedrich-Wolf-Matthias.htm. The biography there has recently been expanded (mainly, but not exclusively by a translation of Friedrich's German biography on his own website), it is now up to date.

As a result, the German Wikipedia article has also been expanded considerably, with bach-cantatas.com as the main source. I suggest that the English Wikipedia article be expanded and brought up do date as well. (I don't want to do this because I am not a native English speaker.) --Lektor w (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a substitute for personal websites. Copying/translating material from his website or bach-cantatas.com will likely fall fould of copyright violation detection tools here. A list of performances and collaborators does not establish notability for singers. The German article doesn't mention a single in-depth coverage of Friedrich. Sources which only verify that he sang certain roles are not enough; he needs to be notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the article should be expanded into an up-to-date version. I did not say that anyone should translate from his website or copy from bach-cantatas.com.
Notabililty: cf. Wikipedia:SINGER, criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label [...]" Friedrich has a discography comprising more than 70 albums. User:Gerda Arendt, may I ask you, since you had created this stub article: Is Wolf Matthias Friedrich notable in your opinion? --Lektor w (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, expand. I expanded Psalm 104 yesterday because it was in the news, will expand Psalm 128 today, and have my own priorities. Do't use Bach Cantatas for a reference because we have one user who doesn't accept it as reliable. Carus and Wiesbaden for a start, and take care not to copy. (I'm also not a native English speaker. Be bold, Michael will correct the English, I'm sure.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. – As I said, I don't want to do this. Apart from being no native Speaker: Michael Bednarek's patronizing and destructive behaviour keeps me away from further commitment for this article, cf. revision history. --Lektor w (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Wolf Matthias Friedrich. I don’t intend to take part in the discussion but I want to leave one message here: Frankly I have been unhappy about this article for six years now. May I ask you: is it possible to delete the article? If it is possible I would like to ask every one of you to help delete the article. In case of doubts about my identity you can write me an email (mail address, see my website www.wolfmatthiasfriedrich.de) and I’ll confirm that I wrote this message.--2003:EB:D740:1D00:C0B2:C457:FCA0:5B71 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Seems nobody took notice of this important message. If the artist himself weighs in and requests deletion, this cannot be simply ignored. I don't doubt Mr. Friedrich wrote the posting since he offers confirmation via email.
Mr Friedrich, you are asking for deletion. I understand your wish well and I don't hesitate to support it.
I think your article has been a disgrace since it was created in 2015. Some months ago I had the idea that the article should be expanded by using http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Friedrich-Wolf-Matthias.htm but I was then told that in the English Wikipedia, bach-cantatas.com is not accepted as a source, just like your own website (see above). So this doesn't work. There are a few other texts about you to be found online but they only provide some scattered details. There are no articles other than bach-cantatas.com and your own website that provide in-depth information about you. Michael Bednarek has mentioned this as well. This means that we are not in the position to write a good article about you, or at least a decent article. I'm against writing a Wikipedia article (rather: a so-called stub article) about an artist when there is not even the chance it will develop into a good article. If the artist is then asking for deletion, as you do, I must simply say: Yes, I think that's the best solution, let's delete the article. But I can't decide this alone. I have to ask the others.
Michael Bednarek, let me ask you first, because you seem to know the rules well that are to be followed here. Didn't you suggest that Mr Friedrich is, Wikipedia-wise, not notable enough to have an article? If you are against the article, that would make three of us. What is your opinion, should the article be deleted? --Lektor w (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can nominate an article for deletion; see WP:AFD for details. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I'll read those rules later. But don't you want to share your opinion on whether deletion is appropriate in this case?
You know, this is what I didn't understand about your previous comments. You kept saying, at least indirectly, Mr. Friedrich is not notable. You said this when I tried to amend some details in the stub article and again when I suggested expansion. I thought then, if lack of notability is your opinion, you should not only try to block corrections or the idea of expanding the article, you should instead reject the whole article. So, if I may ask you once more: Would you personally favour deletion? --Lektor w (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that Friedrich doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, but I've never started or supported an AfD on that basis, and I'm not going to start now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's much clearer now. It still leaves the little question if you would support deletion if somebody else started WP:AFD, e.g. myself. It sounds like that because otherwise you should have added, "and I won't support deletion now". And after all, it would be illogical if somebody says, the person is not notable but his article should be kept.
I'll ask Gerda now. I think it makes sense to collect the opinions of the three people who have put some effort in editing and/or assessing the article before possibly seeking deletion at WP:AFD. That includes Gerda, of course, who created the stub.
Gerda Arendt, Mr Friedrich is asking every one of us to help delete the article, as he writes. I think this changes the situation, don't you as well? Deletion should at least be seriosly considered now. Do you still think the stub is worth keeping? Do you still think it should be expanded, even if there is nobody who wants to do it? Would you mind if I started an official deletion discussion according to Mr Friedrich's request? I would like to know your opinion. --Lektor w (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that the subject's wishes are the last concern to be considered. Let me check if the article can get more substantial in English. If it gets deleted, we'll be left with red links, - why would anybody want that? Give me a week in which hopefully not too many die. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "I've never started or supported …. Gerda is right that deletion requests by the subject are usually not of great weight. Stubs are useful, if only to provide a mechanism to a longer article elsewhere. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests by the subject are usually not of great weight? I found this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Deletion of BLPs: Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions. That means that when the subject has requested deletion, it is advised to start a deletion discussion, and in this case, questionable notability is a second reason why a deletion discussion should follow.
But there is again a game changer. User Grimes2 is expanding the article right now. Maybe you might contribute a few more sentences yourself, Gerda. Mr Friedrich's request was about the the extremely poor three-sentence stub that had shown no growth since 2015. We now have an article about Wolf Matthias Friedrich. --Lektor w (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is scheduled on my user page in the near future, as announced above, but recent deaths come first, as explained above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: the (one) user who was against Bach Cantatas Website was banned since we discussed that. I'd still seek out other refs, as the Site copies and translates from others. I use them for recordings but not for biographies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. And many thanks to user Grimes2. --Lektor w (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks to Grimes2 and Gerda Arendt for creating a decent article out of this stub, which had stubbornly refused to become an article for such a long time. – By the way, when thinking about the article's development, I found the term stub-born article to be quite appropriate. According to Google, no one has ever used the term stub-born article online, although it applies to millions of other Wikipedia articles as well, in one or two ways. --Lektor w (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BuySomeApples (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Grimes2 (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article meets DYK requirements, close paraphrasing found, QPQ provided. The hook is yet another "actor plays a role" hook, which isn't really a surprising or notable fact, not to mention the hook is reliant on knowledge about opera. Can something else about Friedrich's life or career be mentioned here instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to search, but I picked this as unusual, pointing at his interest in the revival of forgotten music, at a notable festival whicih also provides a location (sparing the need to say "German bass" which would cause a link - to bass - which I try to avoid). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that Wolf Matthias Friedrich, bass with a preference for Baroque opera, has performed at Handel Festival and Schwetzingen Festival? Grimes2 (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the offer, but ... - bass has too many meanings, same for Handel festival (there are three in Germany alone). Also: singing at festivals is really just a singer doing his job. Performing a very specific exceptional thing is much more, imho. Telling our readers he dares to do a modern revival tells them a lot about him. Many other singers would stick to the standard repertoire. I prefer to give a specific example, instead of a general "preference of Baroque opera" (which would also be better with a link). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 is the best hook possible for that unknown singer. It's a "actor plays a role" hook, but the biographies in the bible of opera singers "Großes Sängerlexikon" consists mainly of roles. That's nothing bad for a hook. Grimes2 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can more information about Friedrich's early and personal life be added to the article, if possible? Maybe there's more information about him out there that could work as a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No information available. Grimes2 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was asking Gerda. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I wrote large parts of the article, and know the sources. Grimes2 (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but honestly the hook isn't really that interesting to non-opera fans, at least as currently written. Had the opera at least been one that was fairly well-known in the public consciousness, perhaps the hook would have work, but that isn't the case here. If there's really nothing else that can be used as a hook material then unfortunately the nomination may need to be closed as unsuccessful. He seems to have had a successful career but it appears that perhaps the article just wasn't meant to be for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think under this conditions it's better to abandon that nomination. What do you think, Gerda? Grimes2 (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what a different reviewer has to say. Narutolovehinata5|, I think you confuse "interesting" for a general reader with "attractive" to the same. "Interesting" just means: new, unusual, unique. I find that many hooks in any given set sound interesting (not mentioning trivia and common-place facts). Do I find them attractive enough to click? In 7 of 8 cases no. You can't interest me in sports however "interesting" the hook is worded, but I still would not want some early-life trivia for a sports person instead. Give sports facts to the sport lovers, and opera facts to the opera lovers, and avoid trivia that are meant to please everybody and are really not good for anybody - and these discussions which you correctly described as leading nowhere. - Today, I have 2 noms to make, and another one died, German, so am probably again the only one to expand and source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a review but a comment, I personally don't see anything wrong with the idea that not every article easily fits DYK, even if it's a good article in general. I think "interesting" in DYK is used to mean general interest not special interests (I'm not one to talk though since I have lots of those!) A really good dyk nom usually is a piece of trivia, that invites more people to step out their comfort zone and try new pages. Another reviewer might have a different opinion, but that's my two cents. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a minute ago, I also used the word "trivia", - the danger when trying to please all. When I word a hook I don't think only of the few hundred tempted to click, which are perhaps raised to a few thousands by something more catchy, but of the millions who read the Main page, and may take only that bit of information. That bit should be not trivia, especially if about a living person. Imagine it was about your father. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't trying to be offensive, by "trivia" I meant neat (usually positive) stuff. Out of the approved hooks on rn, most of them are pretty nice and all of them are pretty decent where living people are concerned. I don't think the point of dyk is to sum up a person's life or achievements, but I do think most people on here try to be respectful of living people. I don't really on plan on reviewing this one, I was just giving my opinion for what it's worth. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't fell offended, just tried to clarify that I look at trivia differently. I don't try to sum up, but write about achievement(s), vs. the suggestion - in a different discussion - to write that someone had other plans when young, - I mean who hasn't, - that's trivia for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not the other view wanted, but I have to agree with the reviewers before me. Not every article is suitable for a DYK, Friedrich's article is more or less a prose list of his roles. You say you chose the hook because of what it alludes to, but "X played Y in revival" doesn't automatically infer that he is interested in revivals. Moreover, that part of the article isn't sourced - so I'd have to ask if it's being said he favors early stuff just because he performed a lot of it? If there is a source about his operatic preferences, maybe we can make a hook out of that. Kingsif (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From experience, if an article isn't just meant to be for DYK, it's better to either not nominate them for DYK at all, or to let a nomination close if it's just not working out and hook options have either been exhausted or weren't there to begin with. I've personally refrained from nominating some articles I've written because either they were too short or there simply weren't any facts that could work as DYK hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the sources give for opera singers is which roles where when, because that's what's of interest for those who care about opera singers. This hook says in other words that he is involved in revivals (which includes historically informed performance also), at a notable festival. Why talk about it for longer than the article is? We don't want to bore readers with mentioning the same familiar operas again and again (Mozart's on the Main page right now), when there are 3000+ others to highlight every now and then. Give one a chance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point right there Gerda. maybe instead of trying to focus on what role an opera singer performed and where, try proposing a hook that's more personal and quirky about the subject, even if it isn't necessarily about the specific roles they performed in. For example, you recently wrote an article about an opera singer who had a background in law, that was an example where a hook about an opera singer which wasn't about their opera work could have worked. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't work for me, and I think I explained that often enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, there really isn't any content in the article at the moment that could be used as a hook that could appeal to a wide audience. Perhaps you can take Kingsif's advice and try to find information like reviews of his career? Maybe there's a quote out there that could work as a hook. Courtesy ping to Grimes2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All informations in the article are based more or less on the website of the subject. There are no other sources. I'm not happy with the article. Grimes2 (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Narutolovehinata5, repeating: "appealing" is not the same as "interesting". If we limit our hooks to what's appealing to the masses, we arrive at sensationalism and trivia (and the critic of all of DYK who said it was a "perversion" was justified). My understanding is that a hook should offer something interesting: new, unusual, something they don't know yet, and then they can decide wheter they find it appealing or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussions above, and the comments made by other editors, I just don't see any path forward for the nomination given the lack of a suitable hook that could reach agreement. As such, with deep regret I am marking the nomination for closure. In response to Gerda's comments, appealing to the masses is sort of one of the points of DYK; indeed, the DYK criteria state that a hook "must be interesting to a broad audience" (emphasis on "broad"). I also don't see exactly what's wrong with writing hooks based on "trivia"; in fact, such trivia could be more effective in encouraging readers to read the article more. For example, imagine that there's an opera singer who also happens to be a licensed veterinarian. That sounds unusual and would probably make readers want to read more. So what happens is that the hook is about the singer and his vet career, then curious readers would click on the link, where they would find out more about the opera singer's long and successful career, including their roles, performances, and reception. In theory it would be a win-win: more readers decide to read the article, more people learn about the person and their career. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind closing this, because of the article quality. However, you seem not to understand the difference between "appealing" and "interesting", and you persist although I requested to spend less time with these fruitless discussions. I want to spend it with my friends in real life. I am close to leaving DYK if your view is more than your very personal view. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, it would be a great shame if you leave DYK and personally I don't want that to happen. It's really just that this one particular nomination didn't work out but there are still many other classical music personalities that would be great DYK subjects. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said that agree with closing this. I am sad about wasting time on all the others. Could you kindly just take it a bit easier until vacation time is over? I have only little time these vacation days, and wasting it one fruitless discussions seems just frustrating. I can do Recent deaths, reviews, simply write articles, without my time being eaten up by misunderstandings. You will not convince me, ever, that it is a good idea not to say that a conductor conducted, but instead something small and not relevant to the specific person, catering for "broad interest". I rather do something else. We had three opera singer hooks in four sets, one right now, DYK? Perhaps study Portal:Opera/DYK/Did you know?#Singers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolf_Matthias_Friedrich&oldid=1207312757"