Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Leighton

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Leighton

Brett Leighton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability not established. Also, the talk page assertion that the subject won the "Paul Hoffheimer prize in Innsbruck" does not appear to be easily verifiable: [1] & [2] &[3] & [4]. Other ghits: [5] & [6] NMChico24 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Claim to notability is unverified. Abeg92contribs 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not sourced at all. Tohru Honda13 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article doesn't specify how this person is notable--$UIT 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see no sources or specifications of being notable.--Joebengo 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A quick Google of the name Brett Leighton shows numerous links to a wide variety of sites which confirm notability. He is a classical musician and an academic, thus he does not have the kind of bombastic site and fan club that some musicians have. The article is desperate for a cleanup and needs additional references cited. I have added three and there are more. Someone who can speak German is probably needed for some of the key sites As of April 8, 2007. I urge my fellow editors not to pull the trigger too fast on this one. JBEvans 11:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think he passes WP:PROF although maybe not WP:MUSIC. The full professorship (could someone who knows german check this here?) plus the work on the world's oldest organ and his role as top judge in major organ competitions passes the bar for me. Music profs are hard to judge as they don't typically write for journals indexed by google scholar, and their performance/composition work stays below the radar of the major media. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Needs a major clean-up. Ganfon 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- strong notability, references included. Meets WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Evidence of notability present. Mukadderat 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Does not meet WP:PROF nor WP:MUSIC. Nothing stated in the article asserts notability, except the opening line "artist of some notability", a phrase that should be absolutely banned on Wikipedia. Making CD's which do not chart, being a judge in a contest, working as a Professor who has not written notable works, all not notable. As for the reasoning above that he is in a profession that does not normally get press coverage, so he must be notable... that is just whacky. My neighbor's cat could be notable under such logic. Delete to avoid setting a very bad precedent. Jerry 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep it's a cleanup candidate at this stage, notability is established.--Buridan 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I ran a Google news search (results now included in article) and found articles on him in five different European newspapers in three different languages, one calling him (in Spanish) "one of the great specialists of the baroque repertoire". I think with that material added (and with the evaluative content in the concert announcements being sufficient to make them nontrivial) it's a clear pass for WP:MUSIC. —David Eppstein 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
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.