Talk:Ralph Cupper

Readding Ralph Cupper
Admin: Kim Dent-Brown said I could try to repost this with the added references. The topic now has one of the criteria from WP:MUSICBIO.
 * I can't see any reference that shows any notability?  Teapot  george Talk  20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 of the references links you to a page where his CD's have been reviewed in 4-5 different newspapers. Is not being reviewed from many newspapers a sign of notability? Mpcpro (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The references are not in English so it is difficult to tell, but they are also not the actual reviews just a list on a commercial site. I think it needs considerably more to show notability  Teapot  george Talk  21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reviews are in paper form and has been written on the web on that page, which is the page of one of the musicians in the 2 CDs: Inge Haugen. From what I was told by Kim Dent-Brown not online sources are valid. Just saying it is hard to tell if its real or not should not be valid since there are many sources on wikipedia pages which are from non english sites. Also many use non online sources. If you want I can link you to an article which has been scanned in on paper which tells you a bit about the CD and the people behind it. Want me to link it? Mpcpro (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the speedy delete for now but still feel that the references so far are NOT sufficient to confer notability.  Teapot  george Talk  21:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions which would make it more notability? Mpcpro (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally deleted this following a speedy tag a few days ago. Mpcpro contacted me and I userfied the article. I suggested that in this form it was not sustainable, and that per WP:NOTENG it would be helpful to have transcripts of any foreign language sources on the article talk page. IMO this still does not meet WP:BIO and the references that are there do not support the main biographical material in the first half of the article. I did say I would not delete again, but this does not mean I support the article's inclusion, rather that I wanted to try and advise Mpcpro without holding a big stick in my hand. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I got the wrong idea. Like I said before on my page, I am new to this! I will try to add some more sources in the next few days which should help the notability aspect of this page, and also try to find some more sources on the first half of the page. Do you guys have any other suggestions which could make this more suitable? Mpcpro (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However hard you try, some subjects are simply never going to be notable. In my opinion this is one of them at the moment. You could perfectly cite all the sources you have and in my opinion they would not be describing a person who is notable according to the Wikipedia definition - however popular or talented he is. The problem is not with the article, but with its subject. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is worth mentioning, but in the Susi Jeans talk page, it is said that all the pupils listed in the main page was added because Susi Jeans have said in interviews/books that they were worth mentioning because they were her best pupils. Since Ralph Cupper is listed, is it worth mentioning that in this page? And then as a reference use the same one used on Susi Jeans page? Mpcpro (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather think all of you are missing the point. Cupper is a pathological liar. He claims to have studied with Nicolas Kynaston (an organist of note), but at the same time uses an erroneous spelling of the name. He claims to have studied Theology and "Androgogy" at "Cambridge" the implication is that this took place under the auspices of the university, but there is nothing to support his claim. Has he added the listing to the Susi Jeans page himself? I could go on. CasaMartini2022 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)