Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrick Pritchard

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 per WP:A, WP:COI. Sandstein 08:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrick Pritchard

Fredrick Pritchard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Image:Little Movements No. 2.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

This page is an autobiography. (See WP:AUTO, WP:COI) If Mr. Pritchard is notable, the article needs reference to published sources, and it needs an editor who isn't its subject. Rainwarrior 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Aldine401. — ERcheck (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've reviewed the revised article. My delete still stands. Even if all of the information was adequately sourced (which I don't feel it is), sufficient notability has not been established. — ERcheck (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Response from Fredrick Pritchard:

First, I DID remove the previous tag placed on the page, in the belief that the article had been accepted. Apparently User:Kon-Tiki001, had placed the tag, but I replied on his/her talk page (Section: Autobiographies). I presented my arguments and appeal there. He replied, "Your article is probably an exception to the rule, and should in my opinion be allowed to stay." However, I will make efforts to provide sources, and carry out all above requests. Obviously, only someone who knows much about me in each area (composer, performer, theory, and education) would have a reasonably complete basis to act as an editor. Prof.rick 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If an editor would have to know you personally in order to properly write this article, then you aren't notable. If you can't provide sources that an independent editor could use to verify the content of the article, that content doesn't have a place here. - Rainwarrior 07:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Response: I see your point. But I understand that having trained and greatly influenced the work of notable musicians can be regarded as a qualifier. I have trained many notable musicians, some referred to in the article. Does this help? Prof.rick 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be good enough, as long as you can list a source with which it could be verified that you've taught those people. - Rainwarrior 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles Greg Wells, Erin Leahy, and Jonah Cristall-Clarke all make references to me as their teacher. (Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source?) You might also find references to Fredrick Pritchard on their other websites. I have not included other successful musicians I have taught, who do not (yet) have Wikipedia articles. But the above-named will probably have information to contribute to the Fredrick Pritchard article, as will others. (Are quotes from the above artists considered acceptable?) Some may appear very soon...others such as Erin, may take a few weeks due to busy touring and recording schedules. Prof.rick 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source (that would be self-defeating). I checked the websites linked from those articles, but could not find any mention of you. Unless the quote is from the artist in the form of a publically published document, it can't be verified. I personally have no doubt that you taught these people, but if it is not a matter of public record, how is it notable? - Rainwarrior 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a reliable source, why does it exist? Doesn't talk (such as this) lead to it's credibility? Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Prof.rick contributions: All the references in the above articles cited by Prof.rick — Wells, Leahy, and Cristall-Clarke — were added by Prof.rick. "Proving" oneself notable by salting other articles does not make your case. — ERcheck (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Prof.rick has also referenced himself in Musical notation - here. — ERcheck (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to ERcheck This is NOT salting! The above-named artists were first consulted, and were most enthusiastic regarding my contributions, and endorse my article 100%. Why not "wait and see" if these artists remove these edits...or else contact them yourself! (Greg's comments on the Fredrick Pritchard page would help verify this, had you not removed it.) [See Fredrick Pritchard History page.] Furthermore, I have only referenced myself in "Musical Notation" as a PUBLISHED composer. (Perhaps it would help to take an overview of said article, and recognize that this reference helps to "round out" concepts of musical notation.) Prof.rick 03:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who may know we well as a performer may not know of me as a composer or educator. (And so on, in circa.) This is why I stated (or inferred) that an editor who knows me as a performer, composer, and educator is best qualified to write or edit the article. Prof.rick 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And as I said, unless someone can learn these things without knowing you personally, you're not notable, and it's unverifiable original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Instead, your user page or a personal website is the appropriate place for this information (I suggest copying this over there now because this article is likely to be deleted when the time runs out and this is reviewed by an administrator.). - Rainwarrior 06:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, let an Administrator review and delete. I have no doubt Wells, Cristall-Clarke, Leahy, Cook, or others will present a new article, to which I hope you will be open-minded. (But who knows?) Prof.rick 08:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

REVISIONS

I have re-written and condensed the article, Fredrick Pritchard. Please check the article's Discussion Page for comments regarding changes, and a rationale for keeping the article. Prof.rick 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I'm sorry but we can't have pages put up by their subjects - it would open the floodgates. You might be v notable but someone else has to do it. NBeale 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • No offense, but this is just another version of an ad hominem argument. Why should it matter who writes an article if the article is written well, conforms to WP policies, and the subject is notable (please note, my point is intended to be general and not necessarily apply to this particular article). -- Black Falcon 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • As A Wikipedian, I disagree that it would "open the floodgates". Although autobiographies are discouraged, this is not a "rule", carved in stone. There are exceptions. It this were not so, Wikipedia would not mention it! There is NO RULE which states that someone else HAS to do it (but I am sure, if necessary, someone else would.) Prof.rick 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:AUTO may only be a guideline, but it's pretty sound. There's a certain noblesse oblige and also it is invidious having to argue that another Editor is not notable. So I've amended my vote to Delete. But I'm afraid that even if it weren't an autobiography I would still vote delete because there are no reliable published sources cited for the information in the article, and almost ghits. I suggest you put this information in your user space NBeale 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Please see the Talk page on this article, Fredrick Pritchard. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:Rainwarrior Check again! All these pages make references to me, Rick Pritchard (Fredrick Pritchard. True, I edited their pages. However, I have consulted all parties concerned, and they have first approved and supported my moves, and will make it clear. If they support my edits, can this be considered "salting"? (Surely, if a number of these successful artists still return to me for lessons, this must say something!)

Greg Wells tried to add to the Fredrick Pritchard page today, but his move was reverted. Will this happen to every submission by my successful pupils? Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles did, but did not cite any sources. I was commenting on the personal websites of the artists, none of which contained any reference to you that I could fine. And yes, direct comments by the artists are not admissable, since there is no way to verify that they are who they claim to be. - Rainwarrior 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:Rainwarrior Would you like a signed letter from them? Or would you question their signatures? (See my notes to ERcheck). IF NECESSARY, the named artists will write to you. 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:NBeale: Thank you for changing "Strong Delete" to "Delete". Is another editor not notable if Wikipedia contains an article about him/her? Please refer to the article's talk page for "published sources", and also please check the References I have provided. (I could add more, but should the page be smothered with references?) Again, I regard this issue as not primarily about me, but about Wikipedia policies, and their interpretation. Whether or not the article is kept is less important to me than the interpretation of Wiki policies. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To User:ERcheck: And why shouldn't I reference myself regarding the Musical Notation article? I spent many hours researching the subject, and contributing to the page. The quote (to which I refer) is published and verifiable. Even if my contributions were not founded (contradictory to the page history's evidence), what on earth does it have to do with THIS article? Shall we then question I am a devoted and honest editor, and hope to remain so. I have contributed untold hours to the advancement of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I can hardly be accused of "salting" when all such edits were done with the approval and support of the subjects of the articles in question. I don't want to argue this case, but please, let's play fair! Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of Wikipedia policy whether or not regarding the Fredrick Pritchard article, User:Kon-Tiki001, User:Black Falcon, Greg Wells, Jonah Cristall-Clarke and Erin Leahy. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Attribution is the applicable policy. Adding what your pupils told you is acceptable cannot be confirmed to the level of reliable sourcing required by Wikipedia. Using these articles as examples of verification of who you have taught is a case of "because I told you". Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies describe why autobiographies are problematic (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Your contributions are appreciated; but, Wikipedia policies apply to all of your contributions, including an autobiographical article. — ERcheck (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And if ALL my notable pupils were to post entries on my page, OR on their own independent web pages, would this make a difference? (I am questioning the issue of "published" vs. "unpublished".)

Or have you simply made a decision which cannot be changed? 07:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whether or Not

Whether the Fredrick Pritchard article is KEPT or DELETED, (a matter which doesn't matter a great deal to me); I am just bursting with such remarkable attention! I think its time for a little humour here! Whatever your stand, let's all take a moment to laugh at the entire issue, which, really, is of less importance to the world than we may believe! Not one of us (editor, adminstrator, or the like) can hardly become so absorbed in this issue that it effects our daily lives! Please, everyone, PRO or CON, take some time to put it in perpsective, and LAUGH!!! Wikipidia policies are more legitimately destined to scrutiny, than I am! Prof.rick 06:46, 17 March 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.