Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Irvine

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 Delete, I think it's clear that this article needs to be deleted. After two relistings, the only !votes are to delete. The consensus is very strong to delete here. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Irvine

Notability? (converting contested speedy to afd - association with CIM asserts some notability) — ERcheck (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm a little confused about the policy here -- and where exactly I'm supposed to "defend" keeping this page, but I created this stub and I will copy here what I wrote on its talk page about Jeffrey Irvine's notability. "Jeffrey Irvine is one of the leading viola teachers in the US today, and the list of where he teaches/has taught ought to lend enough clout to his name to assert his significance or influence, without other superlatives or generalizations. His students hold positions in major orchestras and they are teachers in university music departments all over the world. As a student of Karen Tuttle he is also part of her legacy as an annual organizer & teacher of the Karent Tuttle Coordination Workshop." J Lorraine 09:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete non-notable. Nekohakase 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Uncle G; if a person's field of work IS teaching, then whether or not they are notable teachers depends not only on what they teach, but where and who they teach. If a music teacher's students are themselves teaching & performing in major musical venues all over the world, then that person's influence is felt all over the world. Thus, such a person is notable because of their students' activities. J Lorraine 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more sources can found to show that this guy satisfies WP:BIO per Uncle G. If he is as impressive as J Lorraine says, then such sources should be plentiful. (I looked, and can find none.) Pan Dan 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


WP:BIO lists a number of ways a person can be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it also seems to say that passing or failing such tests is not a sole reason to either include or delete an article, and that the whole idea of notability is not a wikipedia policy. It does point to verifiability, not original research, neutral point of view, etc. I contend first that this article is verifiable, it is not original research, and it has a neutral point of view. I'm in the process of finding more references (besides the link to his bio on CIM and ASTA's webpages), so I would like to request some time to finish doing that before any consensus is reached to delete this page.

I also would like to point out that he does meet some of the criteria for notability on WP:BIO and on WP:MUSIC, even though such criteria is not supposed to be a sole reason for keeping or deleting an article. For example....

  1. made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (Organizing, publicizing, & teaching at Karen Tuttle Coordination workshops, and, through her work, contributing to the spread of William Primrose's techniques in the following generations of violists.)
  2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] (as a performer with the New World String Quartet in the US and in Europe.)
  3. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (The Journal of the American Viola Society, the Journal of Performing Arts Medicine, several news articles (I'll try to find exact dates))
  4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style (This is not exactly spot-on, since I'm claiming that the "style" he represents is a technique or school of viola teaching, not a musical style of performing; and he is one of the most prominent, not the most prominent).
  5. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Aspen Music Festival Viola competition, Cleveland Quartet competition)
  6. Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in ... teaching in a particular music genre. (notable teaching organizations such as Cleveland Institute of Music, Meadowmount, American String Teachers Association; also referenced as a notable teacher of Karent Tuttle's Coordination technique in places like the Journal of the American Viola Society)
  7. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (well, if you call classical violists a 'sub-culture').
Again, I'd like to reiterate my request for more time to find exact references, since most of them are in journals or newspapers, and the dates and article authors of which aren't readily stored in my brain. J Lorraine 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


In addition to what I listed above, he also passes several of the "alternative" tests for notability on WP:BIO.
  1. The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (He has published more articles on teaching in American String Teacher and in the Journal of the American Viola Society than most average college Viola professors).
  2. Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now? (yes, it can)
  3. Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? (yes, there is sufficient information to provide a full-length article)
  4. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? (yes, although this will probably be limited to those in the field of classical music, in particular those interested in 20th & 21st century performance practice)
  5. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? (yes, again, though, probably only in the specialized field of historically informed performance, which is a sub-field (albeit a large sub-field) of current performance practice in the classical music world).
  6. Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? (yes, although the word "lots" is somewhat ambiguous)

J Lorraine 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Run-of-the-mill faculty CV. ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Above, J Lorraine asked for more time to find reliable sources to show why he passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But that was a week ago, and this AfD has been live for three weeks. At this AfD, I thought the guy under discussion there was notable, but couldn't find any reliable sources to back up my claim, so the admin's decision to delete that article was correct. Same would be true here. Pan Dan 00:50, 13 October 2006 (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.