Talk:Organ scholar

Merger
I have started the merger from List of organ scholars at British universities and colleges, as per the AfD discussion. Many of the names on the list had no assertion of notability beyond the fact that they were (or are - or, in some cases, will be if they pass their exams(!)) organ scholars somewhere. I trimmed the list down to (a) those with articles (b) those with references and (c) those that could conceivably have an article written about them because they were Director of Music of a cathedral (not Assistant Organist, not Organ Scholar, not DoM of a parish church). The names that aren't transferred across will be kept in the page history of the other list, so other editors can check to see whether anyone important has been lost. It was clear from the AfD discussion that the list should not contain everyone who has ever been an organ scholar (at Oxbridge or elsewhere), which at least saved me from having to add my name to the list first... BencherliteTalk 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

merger proposal
Following the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of organ scholars at British universities and colleges, and its merger into organ scholar, the same should happen with List of organ scholars at British cathedrals and parish churches i.e. non-notable names weeded out and the notable people merged here. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with this. Coldmachine Talk 09:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, I note that the list not only tells us who the organ scholars were but also tells us which churches have an active organ scholarship programme, which is important. I wouldn't want to see this aspect lost when pruning the list of non-notable names. Perhaps the list should not be simply "list of organ scholars", but rather "list of XXXs with the post of organ scholar, along with notable holders of the post", where XXX is "universities and colleges", "British Cathedrals", "British parish churches", etc. Mooncow (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. What harm is this list doing to anyone? It's a fascinating list to any English organist. Who are you to decide who is 'notable' or not? Leave it as it is - a lot of work went into making this list, and you (one person) is going to ruin all that hard work. Well done you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.230.40 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "What harm is this list doing to anyone?" is not a persuasive argument in this context - see WP:NOHARM for why. "It's a fascinating list" - ditto, see WP:ILIKEIT.  As for deciding who is notable, WP:Notability is the test, not my personal views.  With the best will in the world, the vast majority of people on that list are not notable in Wikipedia terms: simply being an organ scholar at a cathedral is not enough to pass that test.  As for one person ruining a lot of hard work, that alas is not a good reason to keep something either - see WP:EFFORT.  I didn't nominate the first list for deletion, but I put a lot of work into merging the contents as per the deletion discussion; I'm also clearly not alone in my view that this second list ought to be merged as well.  It is a shame that the people who added the names to the list failed, in the vast majority of cases, to add any references to prove any of the information added (names or dates). BencherliteTalk (temporarily editing from my back-up account) Bencherheavy (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with proposal. These are getting out of hand. What about the template at Nicholas Cleobury? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

History
It would be interesting for this article to carry some information about the history of organ scholarships, origins, when did the practice begin, early scholars etc. I don't know enough to write about this topic, but it would improve the article greatly.Cnbrb (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)