Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Apps


 * 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   no consensus. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Apps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable piper - article seems like advertisement for reed business. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - If anyone has a question, or wants to see if I can drag something out to help with anything, let me know. As I made clear on the Talk Page, I'm WP:COI girl over here, so that'll be it from me. Having said that, I didn't see it breaking neutrality, and a PROD for notability was rejected. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see nothing  in  this 2012 article created by an   that conflicts with any of our inclusion policies or guidelines. Moreover, I venture to suggest that the nominator, an extremely, new user, has an agenda against such  articles. Author appears to  have substantial  subject  knowledge and is otherwise doing  good work in this area. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: We are heading to a no consensus closure, but let us try one more relist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – This article has had various templates added and removed, and I don't see that much has changed since then. Some of the sources are offline and I'm reluctant to !vote delete without seeing what they say. This book by the subject has appeared recently. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about the arcane world of bagpipes to make a judgement on notability, but that aside, the article does not read like an advertisement.  The Blue Canoe  15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I simply don't see encyclopedic relevance here, and none of the sources in the article establish notability. A self-published 45-page kindle book doesn't add anything. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a tough one to call, and I am going to have to go with keeping the article on the site. I do not see the article being an advertisement, as it reads very neutral when compared to some of the material on the site. One thing that I did notice is that there are a good number of Google hits for the name, many of which revolve around his reed work and judging of competitions. The only thing that that goes against this is that there is a lack of immediate news sources in the press which is generally a good way of noting notability on Wikipedia. Still, the piping community is fairly small, so I do not think that lack of sources akin to the New York Times, or other big news corporations should be held against keeping the article here, as the user who wrote this stated early on their connection with the topic and is a well-respected administrator, as Kudpung stated above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2015 (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.