Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Cadwallader

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. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Cadwallader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Cadwallader does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for acadmics from 2-8 on the list. An argument might be made for the first one - that he's had significant impact on the discipline, but frankly, I just don't think he hits that bar either. Not every textbook author or editor is notable. He certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to new article per WP:BIO1E. His coauthored textbook, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, appears to be notable, so if anyone wants to make an article on that, we can redirect there. I found seven published reviews of it (including a minor academic spat between two different reviewers in the same journal); see the article for links. He is coauthor of another textbook Harmony and Voice Leading but I think he was only added as a coauthor to its fourth edition and I can't find reviews that mention his contribution to it. I don't think that's enough for academic or other notability for Cadwallader himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete even for a low citation field, this person is not notable with a total of 34 citations over a full career of 40 years. --hroest 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Edit: I retract my !vote since Russ has found additional evidence and I am not familiar enough with the field to make a reasonable decision. --hroest 20:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you doing this search? Google scholar searches for author:allen-cadwallader show me citations of 633 and 301 for the two textbooks, then 34, 23, 22, 16, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein I used Microsoft Academic for this since there was no profile on GS and that was my link here: [1] since there is no aggregate number of citations in GS. But I agree, maybe MA is not the best here since it does not seem to pick up citations from books. But even if you add together all the GS citations I dont think you can get enough to pass NPROF. --hroest 21:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think to understand that his book (with David Gagné) Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, mentioned above, is one of the most often used books for Schenkerian teaching in the US, with four editions on OUP. I fail to understand how a book could be considered notable without its author being considered notable as well. Cadwallader, in addition, is the author, coauthor or editor of several other books, e.g. Trends in Schenkerian Research, 1990, or the Acts of several of the Mannes College International Schenker Symposiums. It is true that this all may not make him extremely notable, but he is mentioned in several other WP articles, so that deleting his article might be problematic. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As David Eppstein pointed out above - being the author of a notable textbook falls under WP:BIO1E. His links from other WP articles are almost entirely in the form of an author's name in a reference list. Such a link is not at all problematic to remove, and does not confer notability. The way to establish notability would be to directly address the criteria in WP:PROF, preferably with direct references to sources that verify that he meets one of those criteria. PianoDan (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. While I hear the WP:BLP1E concerns clearly, I've added the edited volume to the article mentioned above by Hucbald.SaintAmand -- it does have several reviews on JSTOR [2][3][4]. I also found a review of the 5th ed. of the textbook in a reliable-looking-through-not-great-source [5] (there's a review of the 4th ed. on the same site). While an edited volume doesn't contribute much to notability, I think that (with the solid citations and textbook) it's enough to save it from WP:BLP1E world. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity: Cadwallader is listed as co-author on two textbooks, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach,, and Harmony and Voice Leading. The SECOND one is far more notable, but Cadwallader was only added as co-author after the death of one of the principal authors. It is still universally referred to as "Aldwell and Schachter" in the theory community, which raises doubts about whether it helps make Cadwallader himself notable. Analysis of Tonal Music IS directly associated with Cadwallader, and so relates more to the question at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎PianoDan (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, thank you. I'd pass over the fact that Analysis of Tonal Music is also a textbook. So, to sum up, my weak keep case is that Analysis of Tonal Music is clearly notable, and clearly significantly tied to the subject. By itself it would be a BLP1E. The multiple reviews of Trends in Schenkerian Research (though an edited volume), and the well-known Harmony and Voice Leading (on which the subject replaced Aldwell for two editions after their death) both contribute to notability. I don't think either one would be enough by itself, but together I see them as overcoming BLP1E, hence the weak keep !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Page is mostly just ISBN stuff. —ÐW^(T·C) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:17, 8 April 2021 (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.