Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Friedman (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Nobody other than the nominator has provided a reason for deletion, everybody's providing a pretty solid reason for keeping this article. Therefore, I think WP:SNOW clearly applies here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Friedman

This article was previously considered for deletion here.

Jay Friedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - In the previous AfD here, it was argued that this article needed time to grow or expand, that sources to establish notability needed time to be found, etc. The sources and measures of notability cited are sorely flawed - a Google search that brings up many unrelated hits, a Google news search that brings up local music performance news/reviews (WP:BAND and other guidelines and standard interpretations of policy don't give local "Performer X played downtown last night (and it was good)" enough sway to be substantial coverage), a biography that is a reviewed submission by him, listing him as faculty at a conservatory (failing WP:PROF), and a deadlink that use to get us to an all-inclusive trombonist database (no indication of notability there). The only point I won't address is one that needs no addressing: one participant in the previous AfD has made it very clear that he believes notability is "irrelevant" - that is his opinion, and may be something he uses in a keep rationale, but it is not consistent with our practices and merits no comment or response. Cheeser1 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Google is finding quite a few online bios, news mentions, and compositions. I think notability is satisfied. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  Double check that - see previous AfD re: Google test. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm looking at the results here [1] and [2] here. It might have thrown false positives before, but I'm finding a lot now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    All I'm seeing here is sheet music, instructional CDs, and his personal website. None of those are independent sources. --149.43.252.9 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Jeremy McCracken. Can a link to the previous AFD(s) please be added to the top of this one, like we do with others? Thank you Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's right in first line of my rationale. I don't know the template, so I have added a line to the top - someone can add the template instead, if they know it. A Google test hardly qualifies for WP:BIO. Cite some of those would-be sources, because last time we Googled this one, it turned out to provide very little in the way of notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The very first Google News archive hit for "Jay Friedman"+trombone [3] shows blindingly obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Good sources. Passes notability guidelines for WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  Oh really?

  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable ... - debatable, but only borderline nontrivial coverage, and only in sources of which many are not independent
  2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. - nope
  3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. - nope
  4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. - nope
  5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). - nope
  6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - nope
  7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - nope
  8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. - nope
  9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. - nope
  10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) - nope
  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - nope
  12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. - nope

  Want to be more clear? Saying "WP:MUSIC" doesn't get you a free pass unless you demonstrate that the subject passes WP:MUSIC. And before anyone does it, don't refer to his participation in any large orchestra or other body of musicians. WP:MUSIC is very clear about the fact that members of groups do not inherit notability. The article here arguably doesn't even assert notability (a speedy criterion for deletion), and if there are multiple reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability... where's the beef? I don't see it in the article, or the current sources, and only in a single local news story (multiple reliable independent sources being required here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clearer, my comment "good sources" meant that this artist passes WP:Music #1, and a musician needs only meet one of the criteria. I saw what I perceived to be multiple nontrivial reliable sources. But, in order to strengthen the reasoning that certainly a principal trombonist of a major symphony orchestra is certainly notable, I did a brief search and added additional sources - nontrivial - and did not include the many many concert mentions - and only included articles about the subject himself, save for one CD review in which he is mentioned. Secondly, the overwhelming reasoning for keep from the first nomination for deletion of this article were convincing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those don't look like significant nontrivial coverage to me. Also, I addressed the previous AfD in my rationale - much of the "keep" was either vague reference to "is notable" or was "keep and expand" - which has not happened, and presumably will not, happen. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Two of the articles specifically about this musician marked (fee required) look short at a glance, but both are 500+ words. I am not willing to pay the fee for the whole articles, but the fact remains that they exist, and establishes notability to me. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I've taken part in many afds for classical musicians and singers and this one is about the most clearly notable example that I've seen. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's disturbing that Cheeser1 seems to want to require that the subject of the article pass notability criteria appropriate for popular, not classical, musicians, such as winning a Grammis or composing music for a TV show. It makes me wonder--does this editor really know anything about orchestras or about classical music? Is he aware that first-chair players in an major orchestra are often well known classical musicians in their community? Or that winning such a chair at 25 is very unusual? Probably not... In general terms: I don't think anyone should propose an article for deletion if they don't know the field of the article. Opus33 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepStrongly agree with this. I wouldn't normally post a concurrence like this without something significant to add but I think that the wall of text from cheeser might be interpreted as reason enough to close the debate. This guy is first chair of a section of a world class orchestra. That, in my book, is much more notable than winning a grammy (of which there are ~120 a year offered).Protonk (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Opus33: I don't propose the deletion of articles about gastropods because I don't know anything about gastropods. No shame in that - but it's important not to waste other people's time. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the Chicago Sun-Times article appears to establish notability solidly. — brighterorange (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC. Same as last time. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Last time, eh? Last time, there were a few speedy votes because the article, in that form, had no assertion of notability. Now it has a minimal assertion of notability supported by extremely small local newspaper snippets, personal auto-biographies, and musician/people databases/lists, most of which were sloppily added to the bottom of thhe article after this AfD started (god forbid any of you people comment before then, when I asked weeks ago about whether or not anyone intended to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards). He still only garners one significant mention in a major publication of any sort, and the fact that 2/3 of the inline citations are non-independent biographies of Friedman is still an issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (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.