Talk:Dmitri Smirnov (composer)

message: Transferred from My talk 
:Hi ... I saw you put a notability marker on the Dmitri Smirnov article I started ... maybe valid, I'm not sure.  I had never heard of him, but came across him as the composer and librettist of an opera called Tiriel that I was making a note of in the article on Blake's character, and as is my habit ... if I need to look something up, I first look on Wikipedia, and if it's not there, I add it.  I see Smirnov's Solo for Harp won First Prize in a competition in Maastricht in 1976, but I don't know if this is enough for Wikipedia notability.  His publisher, Boosey & Hawkes, is very reputable — I'd guess that might be enough?   What are your thoughts? In general I'd rather err on the side of generosity, "all the world's knowledge" as it says. — Stumps 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Could we please get a verification of this from another source?
Generally I would delete a claim of a death of a BLP immediately but this one has a source that might be valid.
--Willthewanderer (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this news article be appropriate as a secondary source? FunksBrother (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

text: See sources in the Russian Wikinews obituary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text: ... or Sikorski, one of his publishers, in English --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My cyrillic is rudimentary but the matter seems settled. My condolences to Mr Smirnov's family. --Willthewanderer (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased? 

message: Are we not discussing his Wikipedia contributions/awards/positions because they are not covered in RS?  -- GreenC 14:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about the composer. For his user capacity, consider writing for the Signpost or an obit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If he has awards and positions that are not in the article but are covered by RSs, they belong in the article. Feel free to add them with the RS refs. --2604:2000:E010:1100:11A9:DC5E:CAB5:2E2C (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia notability 

message: An editor delete material improperly from the lede here. Asserting a personal preference. We go instead with wp:lede. It was re-added per wp:lede. If the editor wants to again delete it, I would ask that the editor first obtain consensus here. This is just the sort of heavy handed editing that makes people not want to edit wikipedia. --2604:2000:E010:1100:11A9:DC5E:CAB5:2E2C (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite my asking the editor to obtain consensus here before yet again deleting in conflict with wp:lede, she has yet again deleted it. Without consensus at all (not even discussion - which of course is short of consensus). This is not good. Why edit at wikipedia with people being this way? --2604:2000:E010:1100:11A9:DC5E:CAB5:2E2C (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Circumstances of death are not normally included in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

text:  I'm not a guideline person, but if you like one: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, saying "Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines likely have greater community buy-in then personal preferences. This death is not a "normal" death - that is why the lede need not follow what you say is "normal." The MOS you quote along the same lines uses the word "usually". And the word "often". This is an unusual death. That is why it falls outside what is "usual" as to including it in the lede. And falls outside what is "often" done. Thanks for quoting from the guideline. It supports inclusion. It does not mandate deletion at all, for this unusual and notable death. 2604:2000:E010:1100:11A9:DC5E:CAB5:2E2C (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said "mandate". I'd still like more about his LIFE in that lead, than more about his death, which - sadly - is not even unusual in 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Gerda. Not unusual death. Everyone dies in the end. Does not belong in lead.PrisonerB (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The cause of death should only be included in the lead when it has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. Smirnov has been notable here since 2006. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Concur with the others.  Applicable here is WP:UNDUE, wherein it is not appropriate to put undue weight into an article, which it is to put emphasis on how someone died when it is no particularly relevant to their life’s work. Also worth considering is WP:RECENTISM, wherein the coronavirus pandemic, while an important event, is not, in the long-term, going to be at a level of importance to make it lead-worthy.  For example, if we go back 100+ years, someone dying in the 1918 influenza pandemic also doesn’t need that fact in the lead, whereas perhaps if they died on the HMS Titanic, there would be a possible argument (though even then, worth discussion and not automatic). Montanabw(talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

text: On the contrary: death from a viral infection ("natural causes", indeed) is quite "normal". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

text: The OP misrepresents this as  case of the improper deletion material from the lede; but it is in fact a valid challenge to their addition of material to the lede - an addition for which they thus have responsibility to demonstrate consensus - and which they have failed to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a situation about personal preference as the OP suggested but an understanding of how a  lede is written. As said above Covid-19 deaths, sadly, are numerous and are not significant in terms of notability of this BLP. The death could possibly be included in the article body. What bothers me more is the personal attack on a highly productive, generous and kind editor, here-"This is just the sort of heavy handed editing that makes people not want to edit wikipedia." Personal attacks are not a good idea but most unacceptable in this case. Please don't. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Editorial discussions should never get personal, agree.PrisonerB (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion