Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Lohse, Martin

Lohse, Martin
This looks to me like a violation of WB:HOST. So I'm bringing it here to get a reading on the question from the Wikibooks community. Pi zero (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've been studying the WB:HOST, and I agree, in a strict sense it violate the paragraph of not publishing original research, there is text in the book which has never been published before. On the other hand most of the material in the book has been published in newspapers, radio programs, music articles and program notes for the scores, and the book is an attempt to collect all the different material in one place. We are very few who contributes to the book, and the main purpose of my contribution is to illustrate the text with scores and sound samples, which needs to be given the right license etc. Martin Lohse (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Relevance of the book: An important tool in a composers development is the study of contemporary techniques of other composer, for inspiration or rejection, which makes a few but dedicated readers to the book. Martin Lohse (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the operative text is Wikibooks pages are not Personal homepages. The issue is, I think, that we have a user with the name "Martin Lohse" writing a book about one "Martin Lohse", a still-living composer. We do not know that the two "Martin Lohse"'s are the same person; a researcher could have taken his subject's name as a form of tribute. Not that that matters much; given the name similarity, we can assume identity for the nonce. In that case, is this work on Martin Lohse of academic value? Are there courses outside of Martin Lohse's studio that teach his music, and could this text be of use in such courses? I think that is what would distinguish a self-published academic work from a vanity homepage. Chazz (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While the concerns about WB:HOST are justified, I feel the proposal of the book is not necessarily a violation of project scope. It is definitely possible to present and discuss a topic starting from a particular application or a case study. Two loosely-related examples:
 * In a teacher-formation university course (don't know what the proper English term for that is) one could have a course on psychology of education entitled "Psychoanalysis, Education and Culture". While the works on education written from the perspective of psychoanalysis are just a small subset of the overall body of knowledge in the area of psychology of education, studying them provides a framework for reflections about general, overarching questions on the subject.
 * Compare the following two wikibooks on the Haskell programming language: Haskell and Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours. Both of them are intended to be tools for learning the language. While the former follows a more conventional textbook style, the latter proposes a rather arcane concrete task and presents the features and workings of Haskell as they are needed to perform the task. The approaches are very different, and aimed at different audiences, but are perfectly valid (both books are featured, BTW).
 * In this spirit, a book that presented an overview and discussion of composition techniques in contemporary classical music using the works of Martin Lohse as a case study would, if properly referenced, be a valid proposition. That would probably require important changes in writing tone in some of the pages in order to "de-personalize" the text (and of course a renaming of the book), but such changes sound quite feasible at this point.--Duplode (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is some valid content there but the name and scope should be altered. Something in the lines "The classical composer". I mostly agree with Duplode but there are some particularities that make this even more problematic than the examples given. Sadly the author decided to focus the work only on this one subject recent creations, this can be seen as blatant self promotion or at least not having a NPOV and being OR, that puts in check any validity the project could have as an educational aid. There is still few content in there so I would be happy in having the book tagged as a breaking NPOV to see if the editor understands and fixes the issues, the project with the right editor could be extremely useful... --Panic (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have warned the author of OR, so I hope he will cite his sources to avoid being accused of it. However, OR and NPOV seem to be the only problems that I see. To a certain extent it can act as a self-study book for music enthusiasts. If it is a personal homepage, though, the book would focus on his life rather than his musical techniques. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 00:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity. The book could be improved and has valid content separating it from the strict scope it has is fundamental to be of any value here. --Panic (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity - it would have the additional benefit of giving the authors more leeway to structure the contents and interaction with "developing composers". --Duplode (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki - gee, why hadn't I thought of that? :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity. It's a good idea, what is the best way to make the transfer? For now, it would be nice to make the book with the contents as it is, and maybe later it would be possible to use some of the contents for a more general book about contemporary techniques in classical music, which, I think, could be a great book on wikibook. Martin Lohse (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)