Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organ scholars at British cathedrals and parish churches

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. NW (Talk) 23:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of organ scholars at British cathedrals and parish churches[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Excuse for huge list of WP:NN people. Anyway, Wikipedia ia not a list. See WP:NOT. Student7 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of them are certainly notable, but such a huge exhaustive list is perhaps too indiscriminate. Some of the individual church/cathedral sublists may be worth merging to the articles on those places.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would be nice if there were sources for the names, of course, before they were dumped in a cathedral / church article... but that would be asking for too much, alas. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long-standing merger proposal that would see any notable names (i.e. people with articles, or people without articles but with references and a realistic chance of passing WP:BIO) merged into Organ scholar. I did the same thing after a previous discussion on a similar list, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organ scholars at British universities and colleges. However, I can't actually face sorting the wheat from the chaff on this list, as (a) from a quick look it's overwhelmingly a list of non-notable organists without any references for their existence let alone association with a church or cathedral, and (b) even stripping this list down to its "notable core" and merging it somewhere else wouldn't add greatly to the sum of human knowledge. So cut to the notables and merge, but I won't be doing it! And assuming no-one else can be bothered to do this (and the WikiProject on Pipe Organs has been inactive for a very long time), then switch off the blower per nom / per NN / per NOT and take one thing off my "to-do if I can ever be bothered" list. You may now start your organ-related puns.... Bencherlite ^Talk 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - maybe Merge each and every entry to the article of the Church to which the organ scholar belongs/ed - seeing as I'm on this list myself, and it's my only mention on Wikipedia, it would probably be a bit of a conflict of interest for me to !vote keep, but per WP:NLIST, there's no reason why these shouldn't be contained on the churches' own articles, seeing as lists of organists/assistant-organists are acceptable, even if the musicians do not meet WP:BIO. It would be a pity to lose the content, and I think this is the most pragmatic solution. The major problem with the list is sourcing - at the moment, it looks like it contains too much original research. There are also issues with the fact that some of the churches mentioned don't have their own articles at the moment. However, if the list is deleted, I'd like to have access to it myself (in userspace or whatever) so I can incorporate sourceable information into the main articles on the churches. Claritas § 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The difficulty with this suggestion is that, in the grand scheme of things, organ scholars who are not notable for their later achievements ought not really to be included in an article about the church/cathedral in question. Wikipedia can't possibly catalogue all the people who've held low-level positions at a church/cathedral, as WP:NOTDIR makes clear. If we list the organ scholars of St Foo's Church, why not the treasurers, or the head servers, or the lead Sunday School organiser? I speak as a former organ scholar myself, incidentally, though not at a church/cathedral. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. The vast majority of entries is not notable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the whole organ scholar tradition is without parallel, and this list functions as an incredibly useful online CV. There's a tradition of moving around positions, and therefore the list would be, by its very nature, a long one. Simply stating that it should be deleted because there are a lot of unrecognisable names betrays ignorance. An organ scholarship is not a job. It certainly isn't a 'low level job' as somebody suggested. it's a learning process and so the majority of people listed are not big names yet, but may well be. Also, this is the sole record of such appointments. Nowhere else has such a comprehensive list and therefore it is an extremely important historical document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.170.11 (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Wikipedia is not here to provide a CV service for up-and-coming musicians. (2) Being an organ scholar is a low-level position within the church / cathedral music hierarchy, frankly. He/she is the bottom of the pile of organists. Some of these are said to be sixth-form musicians (for the non-UK audience, that's students aged between 16 and 18). Wikipedia's not here to record lists of such achievements (they may be important for the individual concerned, but that's not the test). (3) As for the people on the list possibly becoming big names, see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEXTBIGTHING. If they become notable, we can have an article about them, but lumping together lots of non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) people isn't what Wikipedia is for. (4) "This is the sole record of such appointments" is, alas, possibly true (seeing as the vast majority of the names have no references at all, which is another problem with it) but irrelevant to the deletion decision. If the organist community wants to copy it somewhere else before it's deleted, or to set up a wiki where such a list would be acceptable, it is more than welcome to do so. (5) "It's an extremely important historical document" lacks a little bit of perspective, surely.... Bencherlite ^Talk 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of them probably are not actually notable--it would be different if we thought we could write a valid article on most of them; However, I note that most of the people here are not "up-and-coming" -- this is a list of all of them, not just the current incumbents. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.