Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Friedman

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Friedman

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

Delete unsourced one-line sub-stub blp about a musician; fails WP:BIO, an orchestra may be notable not all its players - as they may change from time to time - are notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy per A7 - no assertion of notability. --Thinboy00 @996, i.e. 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Are you kidding me? An individual who has been a principal with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra--the greatest orchestra in the world--for over forty years is not "notable"? For Christ's sake, give me a fucking chance to get something there before you go apeshit and try to nuke it. If nothing else, the speedy tag is totally inappropriate since there's already an AfD there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, there was nothing uncivil about that remark. Second, notability is irrelevant and unnecessary, so no such assertion is required--the only proper criterion for inclusion is verifiable existence. Third, even so, saying someone "...is the principal trombonist for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra." is a pretty massive assertion of notability. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, unlike some people I don't have ten hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. I wrote a stub last night because that was all I had time for; I came back today to try to expand it, and instead I had to spend the limited time I could have spent improving that article defending it from some ridiculous attempt to do away with it. This is exactly why, about a year ago, I wrote my essay Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. If the nominator had a problem with it being a stub he should have requested that it be expanded. The mere fact of this nomination is way off the mark. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep pending improvements from User:Kmweber or someone. I'll see what I can find too. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice - there's plenty of time for the user who created this article to write something more than a single sentence, and then put it into article-space once it at least minimally meets the community standards for reliable independent sourcing, notability, etc. Just drop this sentence into his userspace, make it something that at least barely makes the grade, and then he can put it back whenever it actually constitutes an article. (And since it might matter, I'm just going on the policies that have already been cited by others: WP:BIO, speedy A7, etc.) --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Putting it in my userspace and working on it there as you suggest would defeat the whole purpose of a wiki. You're relatively new here (having only been a semi-regular contributor for the past year and a half or so), so you weren't around when most of the major articles here got started. But the whole point of a wiki is that articles grow organically, starting with a sentence or two and then, through small contributions by anyone who has anything to add, becoming a full-fledged article. If it's kept in my userspace, where hardly anyone will see it, that won't happen. I'm afraid Wikipedia is being overrun by a new generation of "editor"--they can recite policy like the alphabet, but they don't actually get Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please refrain from using this AfD as a space for you to write commentary about other Wikipedians. It's insulting and irrelevant. Feel free to continue to rebut my point without making such comments. I disagree with your understanding of how Wikipedia functions, and believe this article should be deleted. That's how an AfD works. We'll see what consensus in this instance is when the AfD closes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for expansion. Being a principal at a world-class orchestra like the CSO is far beyond simply being any old player in any old orchestra (which, if it were true, would be correctly nominated for deletion). Chubbles (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Acceptable start to an article. such a position in a major article is very near the top of the profession.DGG (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Way over the bar for notability, as a quick Google search will confirm. I can understand (but don't endorse) the contribitor's reaction to having a speedy deletion tag slapped on an article which had such a clear indication of importance/significance. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    How quick was your Google search? Much of the results obtained by searching "Jay Friedman" are not about this Jay Friedman. Most appear to be for one "Bruce Jay Friedman." Some are for a sexologist. Most of the rest are for others (including several other people named "____ Jay Friedman") . Only a handful are for this Jay Friedman, and they aren't exactly Wikipedia-class sources. In the first ten pages of results (100 Google hits) there are: his personal website, his little bio page for his work as an instructor, one self-published fan site, another self-published site - a database of trombone information, a store or two ([1], [2], [3], [4]), and an mp3 download page with a single (non-working?) item listed. There is only one source that could even reasonably be considered a source for this article (before being rejected, perhaps), here. It's a small profile in a Chicago "city guide" that features local live music (among other things). This guide considers itself a database of restaurants, bars, music venues, etc - not a journalistic or reliable source, nor a place to establish notability for anyone. Try it: a search for "Jay Friedman" gives 80,000 hits. A search for "Jay Friedman" trombone gives 800, and a cursory (yes, only cursory, I will admit) look through those 800 doesn't seem to reveal any reliable, independent, published sources that could establish notability for this person or that could be used to expand this thing beyond either a single sentence, or a few sentences that duplicate the content found on his official bios on his own website(s). --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wasn't referring to the number of ghits, but to the fact that when I searched for "Jay Friedman" trombone I found a good source in the first couple of pages, which I added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean the short bio on a self-published trombonist database, which isn't reallly a reliable source and isn't really evidence of notability? --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not self-published. According to Trombones Online "All professional trombone artists undergo a review process before a new profile goes live in our database.", which does make it a reliable source to verify all of the notable achievements listed in that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... how does that not make it self-published? Everything I put on my website undergoes a review process. That doesn't mean it isn't self-published. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not self-published, because it is published by Trombones Online with editorial review, not by Jay Friedman. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You are confusing "independence" with "self-published." The "self" in "self-published" is not necessarily the subject of the article. Please refer to the relevant part of verifiability policy. This "Trombones Online" is not a publication. It is a website run by two people, and has no academic or journalistic editorial oversight. It is a self-published source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • See, this is what I'm talking about. You, like many newer editors, know policy backwards and forwards. But you don't understand what policy actually is (descriptive rather than prescriptive) or that the whole point of a wiki is that these things are done bit by bit, as each new person with something to contribute adds a sentence or two. To insist that an article meet certain standards right away is ridiculous, and decidedly un-wiki. The whole point is for collaborative writing over the long term. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Calling something an "uncivil personal attack" doesn't make it so. I am not attacking you personally, but rather your fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. And it is quite relevant here, as your whole justification for supporting deleting this article is predicated on that very misunderstanding. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
<outdent> calm down everybody: several people think that this guy is notable. Well the average biography one reads in a good encyclopedia has where they dude was born and on what date, what his education is, why he is important, all from sources independent of the person themselves. If you can't find those (a) either WP doesn't aim to be a good encyclopedia, or (b) this guy just hasn't generated the significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. All this "assertion of notability" talk is about speedy deletion; that has been declined now the article is being put to the proof - this is a BLP where we need to get it right and sub-stubs that have no real info are just wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) A nice quote from WP:BIO should provide some help here: "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Since the only source is not independent of the subject, but a reviewed submission by him, it doesn't qualify to establish notability. A first trombonist at an orchestra is positionally little different that a VP at a notable company - top of his/her division with some well-qualified people beneath him/her; there's no exception for the trombonist nor the corporate big-wig: published sources showing notability or begone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Google News Archives comes up with enough about this guy to warrant a keep. [5]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice for later deletion if a significant amount of time goes by without expansion. --TheOtherBob 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep But I do disagree with Kurt when I say that [very first edit] is insufficient. Yes, it's the point of Wikipedia for everyone to help improve and grow (I really like your use of the word "organic) each article. However, it should not be anyone's job to find out if that one sentence is a good seedling or a weed. If I come across a stub, I can enjoy helping it grow. But a single sentence, out of context... I could write any similar sentence about any real or fictional thing and there would be no obvious difference. —ScouterSig 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been demonstrated. Lawrence Cohen 23:22, 5 December 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.