Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Wright

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. It is clear that there is consensus to keep the article, and that notability has been established through verifiable sourcing. However, there may be some outstanding content disputes. Please continue discussing making this article better on it's talk page.-Andrew c [talk] 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Wright

Roger Wright (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have nominated this article for deletion based on the the PR nature of it, and the fact that there is nearly no sourced material. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

— Jkp212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete No quality sources to establish notability per WP:NOTE. Keep notability asserted and established. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. My concern is that the article was stripped bare by the nominator in this edit just before the AfD nomination, which I think distorts the condition of the article. I think the correct solution is to fix the article rather than delete it. Yes, it's sat a while, but it hasn't been tagged as being in need of sources. Based on the history, I just can't endorse deletion, at least not at this point in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the current revision, the article is now verifiable (cites to reliable sources) and demonstrates notability. I have no qualms with suggesting the article be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Some of the content that the nom deleted can be restored. I agree with the deletion of a lot of it though. Anyways, after that, add some ref's and we've got a stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is not asserted. Maser (Talk!) 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There are some awards, but it's not clear that any are notable. There's only one record on a major label; the rest are self-published. I'm reviewing the material deleted by Jkp212, which I agree was a capricious way to approach the AFD. Deletions of this type should have a solid justification such as an urgent WP:BLP issue; allow the article to stand on its merits, and allow AFD commenters to use the material to find sources. In this case, there are a few, but I think he still fails WP:MUSIC at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Disclosure: I created the article and provided >90% of its content. I will abstain from voting. Thank you, C.Fred and Dhartung, for pointing out that the article was "stripped bare" before being nominated for deletion; I hope other voters will examine previous versions of the article and also the discussion on the talk page, where I defended the subject's notability at a previous time. This article was one of my earlier efforts, and the language may have been effusive at times. This is adjustable and should not require removal of the great majority of the text. I do feel that the inclusion of excerpts from reviews in major publications, however praise-filled and "PR-like," is appropriate, even necessary, to establish notability. I question suggestions that Wright has not satisfied notability status for musicians. He has won international competitions. He has performed as a soloist on multiple continents. He has been the primary subject of full articles in major newspapers and magazines in multiple countries. He has recorded for a major label; yes, his more recent recordings have been self-produced, but that is being done more and more by artists in recent times for reasons having little if anything to do with their legitimacy, ability, or notability. One more point that I consider very important: Wright may very well meet notability requirements based on his Scrabble achievements alone. He was a US national Scrabble champion. Following links from categories of Scrabble players, I found several articles—stubs, in some cases—whose subjects were described only in reference to their Scrabble playing and whose achievements in Scrabble were clearly less than Wright's; yet their notability had not been questioned. Should not Wright's achievements and major media attention in two such disparate pursuits be viewed as notable? Emoll (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete On balance I think delete because I'm not convinced of his notability. For example: what, exactly, is a US Scrabble champion? Does that mean THE US Scrabble Champion or was he just one of many? The music side of his 'fame' doesnt convince me either. Maybe someone can? Marcus22 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ** Keep It seems this guy was the US National Scrabble champion. That seems to be normally sufficient for an article on Wiki. Might be worth relegating his musical side to an aside however as, at the moment, Scrabble would appear to be what he is notable for. Marcus22 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It means THE US Scrabble champion for 2004 (note that every other winner since 1987 has a Wikipedia article). As for "the music side of his 'fame' " (why the quotation marks—are you quoting something?), what do you need in the way of convincing? Reviews in major newspapers and magazines? There were several in the article, pre-pruning. I can supply many more, or you can look at his website. You already voted, Marcus22, but perhaps others willl take this information into account. Thanks. Emoll (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No-one has used any "quotation marks". I put 'fame' like that because it is his fame which is in question. (I could have italicized it which would have been the same thing). Marcus22 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to give a heads-up: I am going to try to restore the Roger Wright article to its pre-Jkp212 version. In doing so the AfD tag may disappear momentarily, but I have every intention of restoring it immediately. I am not trying to get away with anything. I do want voters, especially those for whom assertions of Wright's notability appear to be lacking in the article, to see what was originally there. . . By the way, might one consider it relevant that Jkp212's entire edit history, outside of edits to his own talk page, consists of removing about 75% of the Wright article, then almost immediately nominating it for deletion? Emoll (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • All registered editors' comments are valid; however, it is worth noting that Jkp212 has not edited outside of this topic. Accordingly, I have tagged his nomination with {{spa}}. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Article is restored to old version. "PR" language can be toned down; inline citations can be provided, and I will be more than happy to work on these, given some time. Marcus22, thanks for changing your vote. I will continue to believe personally that Wright is more notable as a pianist than as a Scrabble player, but I guess beggars can't be choosers. Emoll (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Strong Delete> not notable or sufficiently sourced. seems like a self-aggrandizing pr piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.175.35 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
!vote placed in strikeout text to note that the comment was left by an unregistered user. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Self-aggrandizing? I beg your pardon. I created the article, and I am not Roger Wright.Emoll (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, folks. I've redone the article. It has lots of citations. There are a lot of excerpts from reviews in independent sources regarding his piano playing . Probably too many. I'll gladly remove some of them if people will concede Wright is notable as a musician. By the way, thanks, C.Fred.Emoll (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I need to make a few things clear. I am not Roger Wright; I am not a member of his family; I am not involved socially, romantically, or in any other way with Mr. Wright. I have attended several of his recitals and have met him, and he's a very nice, soft-spoken, humble person. Of course he would like to be better known (as a pianist) by the public than he currently is (he said this to an audience during a Q&A at a recital; I'm not purporting to read his mind), but I'm quite sure he'd never resort to empty PR and certainly not to using Wikipedia for that purpose. He did not ask me to do the article. I did it totally on my own initiative. I am a huge fan of his playing, and I daresay my admiration has more than the usual legitimacy, as I am myself a professional musician. As an orchestral musician, I have played with pianists including Van Cliburn, Leon Fleisher, Alicia de Larrocha, Victor Borge, André Watts, Jorge Bolet, Philippe Entremont, Misha Dichter, Horacio Gutiérrez, Leonard Pennario, Christopher O'Riley, Richard Goode, Yefim Bronfman, and Abbey Simon; I've heard many of the other greats of the past 40 to 50 years, and Wright is in that echelon. My saying that does not in itself make him notable and qualify him for a Wikipedia article, but if you read the revamped article (here is the version I was referring to when I made that post) you'll see that I'm far from alone in that assessment. He's not a household name, but the world of classical musicians and music critics has taken note, and I have kind of resorted to overkill to make that point in the article (while attempting to be particularly careful of not injecting my own opinion). Anyway, I really resent accusations and insinuations that some kind of PR show is afoot and/or that I am Wright or am in cahoots with him. Just look at the article and judge it and its subject on its/his merits. If Wright is still judged non-notable, I guess I'll have to live with that, but frankly it would cause me to lose a lot of faith in the Wikipedia process.Emoll (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, now you guys have taken this too far.. It doesn't bother me so much to have an article about this guy, but the way it is written now reads like promo material.. Be realistic about the notability of the subject; he went to a local university for piano, and has earned a couple of adjectives from very minor and obscure publications. Bottom line: he is not a notable figure in the music or scrabble world. How many concerts is Wright giving? Are they in notable venues? From Emoll's links, it seems as thought Wright is seeking out gigs on very mediocre internet forums. Also, user C. Fred -- who gives the authority to strike a comment from an editor, even if he/she is unregistered? Last I checked, in the community unregistered users are allowed to participate. If you feel it's a puppet, then do a check. But at least let everyone have their opinion, without striking the comment. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(I have responded to Jkp212 on his/her talk page.) (now here) Emoll (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
After considering emoll's thoughtful comments and input on my talk page, I have become convinced he is right, and now believe the article should stay. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Week keep. Sufficiently notable pianist. His recordings are respected interpretations, and the article is sufficiently sourced. More sources can be found. Dr. Wright is a touring soloist if not a star. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've done some more editing on the article, which is here. Believe me, I want it to be a good article, and I welcome constructive edits by others. I am gratified that more posters to this forum seem to be accepting the article and its subject as worthy of inclusion. Still, as this discussion is not officially closed and resolved, I will continue to be vigilant (and, I admit, nervous).
I would like to make what I think is a reasonable request: that this discussion stay civil and on topic.
Is Roger Wright notable as a pianist? Is he notable as a Scrabble player? Wikipedia policy on AfD seems to make it pretty clear that those should be the central questions addressed here. Wikipedia has a guideline page for what constitutes notability, and a supplementary one for what constitutes notability for musicians. My rationale for Wright's inclusion rests on presenting evidence that he has satisfied several of the criteria, even though the latter-cited page states: "A musician or ensemble . . . is notable if it meets any one of the . . . criteria." I maintain that he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in independent, reliable sources (criterion 1), that he has toured both nationally and internationally (criterion 4), that he has won two and placed in several other major music competitions (criterion 9, which requires only winning or placing in one such competition), and that he's been the subject of a half-hour or longer national radio broadcast (criterion 12 [he has done that, although the article as it stands doesn't really document this: I'd better get on it!] Done ). The case for his having satisfied criterion 5 ("has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels") is weaker: he's released only one recording as a performer on a major label and produced an additional one on an important indie label; for probably economic reasons his remaining performance releases, though popular and well received, have been self-produced. So discount criterion 5 if you will, but remember he has to satisfy only one criterion. . . . What about Scrabble? His case can rest on satisfying these criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people) (again, only one required): "In depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field."; and "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." His 2004 U.S. national championship and the extensive media coverage Wright received during the tournament and afterwards should satisfy this. There is also what I consider to be a very important precedent to consider: every other U.S. Scrabble champion since 1987 has a Wikipedia article.
Some of the AfD discussion suggests the article is (or was) unsourced. My original version of the article had several quotes from critical reviews, which were individually cited and sourced, and I covered the rest of the article with a list of sources and external links at the bottom (admittedly not the ideal approach, but not totally unsourced either). The AfD submitter, immediately before submitting the article, had deleted all the review excerpts: a double whammy because not only did all of the article's individually sourced statements disappear, but with them went all evidence that Wright had been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in independent, reliable sources. . . . Anyway, that's all been addressed. The article is completely footnoted now. . . . At any rate, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that inadequate sourcing is generally not a criterion for deletion. The article can be tagged as needing citations, and then hopefully some good editing can resolve the problem. Deletion may be appropriate if the article cannot be sourced (because there just aren't sources out there) but in this instance that was never the case.
Other posters have raised PR issues. The article was never intended to be PR, but perhaps previous versions came off sounding that way. I maintain that as long as the "goods" are there (the article asserts the subject's notability), the tone or style of the article can be adjusted by editing it, not deleting it. I've tried to do this. I think it's pretty prosaic-sounding now. Wright still comes off sounding like a good pianist and a good Scrabble player, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?
A sincere request: if you (anyone) wants to remove material from this, or any, article, that is your prerogative as an editor. But please consider the consequences. Please don't remove statements that contribute to the assertion of the subject's notability, then complain that notability is not adequately asserted, or expose it to others to pass such a judgment.
A subject need not have "fame." A previous post in this discussion included the statement: "I put 'fame' like that because it is [Wright's] fame which is in question." I insist it is not his fame which is in question. Wright is not particularly famous (at least for the moment), but I believe he is notable. Notability has extensive guidelines on Wikipedia (see above). The distinction between fame and notability is not trivial word-mincing. If it were, I don't imagine that
"The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame' "
would be the second sentence and the first part of the third in the "Wikipedia:Notability" article.
If a person is notable, which university he previously attended does not change that.
If a classical concert soloist is notable, whether or not he plays extra gigs does not change that.
If a musician's only media coverage is "a couple of adjectives from very minor and obscure publications," well, that is a concern. On the other hand, don't make that claim if it's patently and demonstrably untrue.
Civil and on topic. That's all I ask. Thanks. Emoll 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the least, his Scrabble career certainly warrants notability. Brianreading 07:39, 3 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.