Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Elliott


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Carleton Elliott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although there is an article about him in the Canadian Encyclopedia, I have been unable find other reliable sources to support the notability of this music educator, his choir or his compositions. Perhaps other editors will have more success; usually inclusion in the CE means the person is fairly well-known. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as the nomination does not seem to contain a reason to delete. Appearance in the Canadian Encyclopedia means that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO and the rest is then a matter of article improvement which is done by ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Both WP:GNG WP:OR emphasize that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources, particularly in regard to notability. WP:TERTIARY indicates that tertiary sources should be used mainly to provide context when writing an article based on many other sources. Although I am happy to find a reason to keep this article, I think "Speedy keep" is too strong; it depends on consensus that the CE is similar to the Dictionary of National Biography, and ignores the sentence in the guideline which says "meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included".&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added two obituaries as references, and more information from the sources. I also can't find many other sources online, but given the period in which he was active, it's possible that there are more sources which have not been digitised (possible mis-spellings of his name (eg Carlton) should be taken into account too). If inclusion in the Canadian Encyclopedia means the subject meets WP:ANYBIO, then it does not matter if few sources can be found online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the Canadian Music Teacher obituary. I saw the Globe and Mail item, but it appears to be a family-placed obituary, and so isn't an independent source.  I did check for alternate spellings of "Carleton"; Checking for "Elliot" brought up a book reference with one sentence about him.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails NPROF. Family-written obituary is not an independent source and organizational newsletter obit fails WP:AUD. Notability is not demonstrated or even asserted ("Mount Allison Local Centre Examinations in Music supervisor", really?). Reywas92Talk 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – an entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia means it passes ANYBIO, and both it and the Hume article it cites are reliable sources. – bradv 🍁  21:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the Hume article, which the Encyclopedia blurb is based on, is not a reliable independent source, being written by a friend of his: "On a personal note...I first met Carleton when he was the examiner for my piano exam when I was about 8 or 9 years old. Many years later, I had the privilege of renewing acquaintance with both him and Patricia when they were examining the students in my studio...We will all miss him." By no means does a short memorial piece written by one's own colleague in one's own organization's internal newsletter establish notability and there is no assertion of what makes this person notable. Reywas92Talk 22:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the Canadian music teacher is NOT "one's own organization's internal newsletter"; it is the journal of the Canadian Federation of Music Teachers' Associations, . It is not at all surprising that a piano teacher should have encountered another piano teacher in the course of their education and career - but the wording makes clear that the writer did not know the subject well. He was not a friend; he refers to two occasions on which he met him, one when he was a child and the subject examined him. You seem to be suggesting that no one who shared his profession and who ever met the man could write independently about him, which is ridiculous. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Federation of Music Teachers' Associations is, guess what, an organization — so its identity doesn't put the lie the phrase "an organization's internal newsletter". Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been unable find other reliable sources to support the notability of this music educator, his choir or his compositions. is a reason to delete if it turns out to be true (as WP:GNG requires multiple such sources, and WP:ANYBIO ...does not guarantee that the subject should be included.), thus the speedy keep is invalid. A Google search only turned up the Wikipedia article and the Canadian Encyclopedia entry, and given that the Hume article cited by the Encyclopedia is unreliable per User:Reywas92 I think it would be best to delete this article. EDIT: I now vote to keep this article per User:RebeccaGreen and the existence of multiple sources per WP:NEXIST, although I stand by my statement that the speedy keep was invalid. Such sources make it just clear WP:GNG, and barely notable is still notable. – John M Wolfson (talk &#124; contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inclusion in The Canadian Encyclopedia is certainly a start toward making him notable enough for inclusion here, but it doesn't get him over the finish line all by itself as the only reliable or notability-supporting source in play — even just a basic GNG pass requires multiple reliable sources, not just one. I checked both ProQuest and newspapers.com as well, and the only new thing I was able to find was an indication that his wife once performed one of his compositions at a piano recital, which is not a notability claim. So literally all we've got otherwise is his paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds, a single-page glancing namecheck of his existence in a book and the internal newsletter of a directly-affiliated organization, which are not notability-assisting sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually locate more solid sources than anybody here has been able to, but if The Canadian Encyclopedia is all we can find then that's not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that both the Canadian Encyclopedia and the Canadian music teacher sources are independent and reliable (see my reply above re the journal, and one editor's claim that the obituary writer was a friend). AfD discussions put too much reliance on online searches, in my opinion. Even if the Canadian Encyclopedia is not equivalent to the Canadian Dictionary of Biography, it is a tertiary source, and therefore indicates that other primary and secondary sources do exist. As the Canadian Encyclopedia article states, "They made index cards for every fact in the encyclopedia, signed off by the researcher, utilized three sources, and had every article read by three outside readers." We may not have access to the sources used for the entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia, but we can be certain that they exist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to have access to sources before they count as proof of notability, not just assume the existence or quality of sources. There's no evidence, for instance, that the Canadian Encyclopedia's research on Carleton Elliott didn't consist primarily of interviewing his own family to collect otherwise unpublished details — if they had based it on published sources that would actually count as evidence of notability for our purposes, such as real newspaper or magazine articles, then its references section would have cited them. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep agree per above and User:RebeccaGreen, and the existence of multiple sources per WP:NEXIST!
 * What multiple sources? We still only have one source that counts as a reliable or notability-supporting source at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with User:RebeccaGreen the Canadian Encyclopedia and the Canadian music teacher sources are independent and reliable  Lubbad85   (☎) 03:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agreed, I think we have a consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep concur that there is enough validation to keep this old-timer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2019 (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.