Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wagner's first love

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wagner's first love

[edit]
Richard Wagner's first love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, the subject matter is of dubious notability outside of the Richard Wagner article and was recently removed from that article under debate of the accuracy of the sources. In any event I feel this article should be removed and the subject matter should go back to debate at the main article. This is an unnecessary off-shoot. Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note To better organize the conversations I have created three sections: Arguments For, Arguments Against, and Comments / Follow-up Arguments. I have left all interactions in-line and in proper context. My reasoning for the organization was that this AfD was quickly becoming a muddle of thick text and I'm hoping that additional voices will find this format easier to add their thoughts to.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the "For"/"Against" subsection headers, per discussion at WP:ANI#Organizing AfD comments. Note also that WP:AFDEQ has an item directly on topic: "Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count." Nsk92 (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mbz1 + the focus of the article is the affair, and therefore notability of persons doesn't matter in this case. Is this a notable historic affair? yes. Is this covered in third-party and reliable sources? yes. Since the answer to both questions is positive the article should be kept. Broccoli (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to both questions is definitely not 'yes', (in fact noone has cited any significant authority who thinks so); that is why the article is up for deletion. If you can provide a reliable source or sources, instead of the fantasists suggested so far, please do so.--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very unreliable sources, who invented 'quotes' for Wagner which are cited here. No details apart from Leah David's name in any reputable Wagner biography. No doubt she and Wagner may have been childhood friends but this is not a topic for a WP article unless proper, recognized, references and sources can be adduced. In any case subject is non-notable both in herself and in any effects she can be demionstrated to have had on Wagner or on anyone else. Not even in my opinion worthy of a note in the main Wagner article unless anyone can show otherwise--Smerus (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The woman herself would fail notability policy per WP:NOTINHERITED. But this isn't an attempt to write a bio of her, otherwise the article title would be Leah David. What we have here is an apparently hastily-written "look at the antisemite who once had a Jewish girlfriend!" attempt at an article, which appears to be a clear-cut WP:POVFORK given that it was recently removed from Richard Wagner. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment by block evading sockpuppet removed)
I agree the article should be copy edited, and I hope that it will be, but I do not believe it should be merged into Richard Wagner exactly because it is less renowned relationship than the one you mentioned above. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if the relationship isn't significant enough to warrant mention in the main Wagner article, where does it magically attain enough notability for a standalone article? Tarc (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I did not say it should not be mentioned, of course it should be, and it should link to Richard Wagner's first love from Richard Wagner. Merging a new article into the main one will be undue weight.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(comment by block evading sockpuppet removed)
Well, if a life event or a relationship of a notable person got a significant coverage in the reliable sources (as this one did), yes, they could have their own articles, and they are. For example Immortal Beloved has its own article versus being a section in Beethoven. Why not to merge Mozart and smallpox and Mozart's starling and Mozart and Salieri into Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject is unencyclopedic. Creating a separate spin-off article about Wagner's girlfriend gives far more undue weight than creating a section in the main article. It's very unlikely that there is enough encyclopedic information about this subject to actually fill up an article. Creating a short section in Richard Wagner (or perhaps even a somewhat longer treatment in Wagner controversies, if appropriate) which mentions the affair along with a few sentences about what happened and why it was notable would give this the proper amount of weight. SnottyWong communicate 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Just for information, not a single one of the principle sources mentioned by Mbz1, including the one that gives the made up quote about RW's admiration for Leah David which is cited at length in the aerticle under discussion, is a recognised academic scholar of Wagner. Just because some hack has published a book doesn't make that book a credible reference. There is no mention of Leah David in Wagner's autobiography Mein Leben, and none of this preposterous sugary story can be found in any of the acknowledged leading biographies of RW such as Newman, Gregor-Dellin, von Westernhagen, etc. etc. No mention of Leah David in any of Wagner's letters. Unless anyone can produce primary evidence (not the fiction given credence this article) to show thast this is not a fairy-tale, nothing will persuade me that the article is anything more than the use of the internet to perpetrate a travesty; contrary to the whole idea of Wikipedia which is supposed to correct such nonsense.--Smerus (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert Hughes and Frederic Taber Cooper are hacks? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This book by Richard Wagner, Stewart Spencer, Barry Millington does mention Leah David.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hughes and Cooper have no competence or standing as music historians. Millington's edition of wagner's letters mentions the name Leah David once and carries nothing of the bizarre soap opera on which the article is constructed.--Smerus (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the sources are still being debated (obviously) I think the focus of the AfD should remain whether this warrants and entire fork article. I agree that having an article on this aspect of Wagner seems like undue weight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you agree that everything that somehow connected to Wagner is notable, and I do not believe Wikipedia will suffer from providing for its readers an article about interesting episode from Wagner's life. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has NOTHING to do with content fork articles and the context in which information is presented. Also, as per your argument it is wikipedia policy that notability is not inherited, but this tangent has been discussed above in relation to having an article specifically on Leah. If the fork article is not completely necessary to the organization of the information presented about the subject I feel the information should be handled in a different way. I have watched a conversation evolve on the talk page of Smerus which outlines the possibility to include this information as a mention under the antisemitism section of the main Wagner article. I also feel it may find a home in the personal life section, but I do feel that an entire article isn't needed to convey the sourced information present at Richard Wagner's first love. If the sources are under debate... the reason for why a reference to this fork was removed from the Richard Wagner article, that is a matter for the talk page of that article and the Wagner project. If the information is not agreed as fact enough for the main article it is not an excuse for an editor to creator a content fork in an attempt to circumvent the discussion of such material. I am not questioning your specific motives, I see you are an excellent contributor and a value to the project. I am only stating my personal thoughts on editing etiquette in situations such as this. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • (comment by block evading sockpuppet removed)
The articles cited include information related to many relationships. I would argue that under these circumstances you would need to include accurate information about Wagner's other affairs to make a compelling article. These other affairs are already present in the main article. Second to that, the sources are of debated integrity. Perhaps Smerus's comments below can add more as to why these sources are up for debate. The Wagner wikiproject has been talking over the sources and excluded specifically excluded this information from Richard Wagner due to the question of accuracy. If the article were to stay with the current sources it would need to be stubbed and rewritten from a POV that assumes the subject matter is speculative. I don't know if that is the best scenario. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Expand it further and rename the article to something like Relationships of Richard Wagner.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that could work, but ultimately it would be a completely new article and not the one we're debating.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an expansion upon this article, but it would be more difficult for the expanded article to go forward if this one is deleted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IMHO this page should be deleted. Leah David is of interest only in so much as she provides evidence to support the notion that Wagner had no strong anti-semitic feelings in his youth. But she doesn't warrant an entry bigger than that for Dresden Amen for example. To go down this route, we should also have articles on "Richard Wagner's dogs", "Richard Wagner's Vegetarianism", etc. If the page is retained it needs at very least to be renamed (Leah David, rather than Wagner's First Love) and rewritten, since it is unencyclopaedic in its current format.--Dogbertd (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because per WP:NOTINHERITED, "everything connected to Richard Wager" is NOT notable - they have to stand on their own, and I just don't see that. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article's tone needs to be made more encyclopedic, but topic itself is notable, and has received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic, as evidenced by RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or replace by totally different article Smerus has questioned the existence of any substantial material on this woman and her relaitonship with Wagner existing. Modern writers such as Millington mention her in passing, but unless it can be shown that the details in the primary source consist of more than just confabulation, I don't see any evidence that this incident merits an article. She may be worth mentioning in the main article or Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism, if it ever becomes more than a redirect, or in the controversies article, but she cannot sustain an article in her own right. Brewcrewer's suggestion on an article on the relationship's of Wagner has some merit. Wagner was a notorious womaniser and there is a relationship between some of his affairs and his creative work, Mathilde Wesendonck's role as a muse for Tristan und Isolde being just the most famous example.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking reliable sources to substantiate the existing content. I don't see enough coverage here to justify a separate article on this topic. If there were a sufficient basis to justify a separate article on Leah David, I would accept one; but the tenuous assertion that this is a significant episode in Wagner's life doesn't convince me. If it's of demonstrable significance, it belongs in Richard Wagner; if not, it doesn't belong at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deor (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2010
  • Keep The fact that Wagner has a personal category means that he is significant enough that including articles that he is relevant too, we can develop multiple articles based on parts of his life, including significant episodes like this. Perhaps the nom mistakenly put Afd template instead of 'improve' template. This is not an issue of inherited as mentioned above. --Shuki (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I placed an AfD template to discuss for the reasons listed and the debate has editors who are on both sides of the issue. Please refrain from making such statements about myself or other editors, as it is an unnecessary addendum to an otherwise useful comment and I will not take the WP:Bait and bring the discussion to a personal level. Thank you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's an interesting article, but Mbz1 didn't write it. Nearly every sentence and every paragraph was lifted wholesale and without quotation marks from the first three sources cited. Some quality time with google books will verify that for anyone who cares to look. I don't know what the policy is on this, but the copyrights are expired on those three sources, I think, since they were written in 1915, 1896 - that may be a translation date, and 1892, respectively. Also, the second source was improperly cited. The correct citation would be to an article named "The First Love of Richard Wagner" in an English-language translation of a kind of popular-press magazine for Jewish families that was current at the turn of the last centrury, something like our Reader's Digest magazine, I think. (I'll correct/expand that citation.) If the article could be properly rewritten, and if each direct quotation from the sources that was to remain were properly set off in quotes and clearly cited, then my first impression is that it could be an interesting addition ... if the sources are deemed reliable, that is. ( We could use the help of a historian or literary scholar fluent in German to sort it for us, I think, re that second source. ) That's a lot of "ifs", but my first impression is that it's an interesting and attractive subject. Oh, also, if it's retained as an article, we'd have to make it clear that we are discussing a 13 year old boy, here. Such an article would have to be renamed. Puppy loves of Richard Wagner, maybe? ;-) In any case, Leah David was evidently not the 13 year-old Wagner's first such attraction. A girl named Malchen Lehmann preceded Leah David in the boy's fancy, according to the fourth source cited in the current article, the one to the 2004 Spencer translation of Joachim Kohler's German-language biography of Wagner. This same source does imply, though, on page 41, that his first three boyhood interests were Jewish girls, saying, "Evidently it was Jewish girls who came closest to his early ideal in such matters." Interesting stuff, and if the information in this Richard Wagner's first love article holds up to further scrutiny, then it should at least be incorporated in some way into Wagner controversies, imo. It would sit well located alongside the information that already exists there giving some support to the possibility that Wagner might have been the genetic son of Ludwig Geyer, a man who is normally considered to have been his stepfather, and who most of the (admittedly very few) sources I've seen describe as Jewish. Sorry for the long post; more to follow about this at some point, I think, on the talk page for Richard Wagner's first love.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or possibly userfy with the idea of a subsequent merge to Wagner controversies. I find the original sources very appealing, but the article can't really stay in mainspace in its current "copylifted" state. ( See above. ) And like other editors, I also think the first three turn-of-the-last-century sources need consideration as to their reliability. Finally, because this article only covers the 13 year-old Wagner, it seems hard to justify it as an independent article without too heavy a reliance on speculation that this year in his life was prototypical, that it might have set a pattern for all his subsequent years. If more material were added about his later romantic attachments, I could imagine something along the lines of Love life of Richard Wagner. That's quirky enough of a title for a doctoral thesis, actually. ;-) Btw, I was probably too hard on Mbz1, above. I see that he had to contend with deletion almost from the moment he created the stub, and I bet he'd have rewritten the article and cleaned it up considerably if he'd had time. I suppose this illustrates why it's better to develop an article on a user subpage in the first place, than it is to progressively create one in a series of mainspace edits.  – OhioStandard (talk)
  • Comment. Torchwood Who? (talk) has asked above for clarification as to why I regard the sources quoted in this article as unacceptable. First it should be understood that Wagner is intensively researched and that virtually every scrap he has written has been published. I am not aware of any first hand documentation by Wagner (in his letters or autobiographical writings) that make any reference to Leah David or the novelettish sequence of events (Dutchman, dog) referred to in this article. Of course I will withdraw this coment, and my objections ot the article, if anyone can provide such sources. If they can provide sources then of course there is not need to quote Praeger - who made a living, to Wagner's intense annoyance, of pretending that he knew Wagner and publishing sensational stories about Wagner's life. Very little, if anything, of what Praeger wrote that is not substantiated by genuine references is true. Cooper is a hack who never knew Wagner and there is no reason to suppose that anything he wrote about Wagner, not substantiated by genuine references, is true. In short, neither Cooper nor Praeger, on whom this article very extensively relies (and from both of whom it apparently quotes verbatim in extenso) can be acceptable as sources for Wagner, unless they cite genuine primary sources - in which case those sources should be cited, and not the piffle written by Praeger and Cooper themselves. If the story cannot be substantiated - and if no one can demonstrate that David had any effect on Wagner's life and works - then this article falls on the grounds of WP:Verify and WP:Notable. This is a textbook case of demonstrating that proper, and ideally peer-reviewed (i.e. academic), sources should be used wherever possible in WP, especially in articles which my be controversial. You can't just accept any old rubbish that happens to been printed somewhere, sometime, as an acceptable reference - because then the reputation of WP would, justly, suffer, and the work of untold numbers of diligent contributors would be denigrated along with that of the more carefree.
I certainly agree with the comments of others that a properly sourced and referenced article on Richard Wagner's Love Life would be interesting and valuable - and I might attempt it myself some day if have a few months or years to spare - but when it is written - whoever writes it - the story (or possibly legend) of Leah David will be only a minor parenthesis, unless and until anyone can demonstrate some genuine reliable sources.--Smerus (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I suppose I should apply my own standards to myself, I will cite, in support of my comments on Praeger, the following, based on Stewart Spencer, Wagner Remembered (Faber & Faber, London, 2000), pp. 80-81. Praeger met Wagner on 17 occasions in London in 1855. He met him on four subsequent occasions between 1857 and 1882. (He thus did not even meet Wagner until twenty years or more after Wagner's supposed infatuation with Leah David). Praeger "falsified documents in an attempt to exaggerate his importance in Wagner's life" and his "text needs to be treated with caution".--Smerus (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Wagner%27s_first_love&oldid=1138301662"