Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Jackson (conductor)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

George Jackson (conductor)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable music student/apprentice conductor, appears to be an autobiography. Actually reading the references given only reinforces the impression that he's non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

KEEP :  This afternoon, I have just read an interview with the conductor George Jackson in a magazine, which is being released online this week. Aside from opinion, is the mere reference to this particular media coverage an indication of notability by Wikipedia's standards (which, I admit, should most certainly be maintained to the highest letter of its doctrine)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.32.39 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right, but although a student or apprentice, it is surely important for Wikipedia to recognise and document the emerging schools of conducting across the world. There is a very fine line between student conductor and professional conductor, and having read this biographical material, it seems that this conductor is active in both worlds. Moreover, I was reading the information on the subject's position in Vienna, and he holds a professional position in the Church (this was edited and listed on the church's Wikipedia entry), and can therefore not be considered merely a student or apprentice. What are your thoughts? KEEP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.32.39 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, not on holding some office somewhere, or the possiblility (or not) or being notable in the future. Hairhorn (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: My thoughts are the same as the nom's; that being an apprentice conductor at an orchestra not itself apparently notable enough to sustain an article doesn't meet the GNG. The article certainly isn't a survey on "emerging schools of conducting."  When the kid gets the podium at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, let us know.   Ravenswing  18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is for people and things that are notable, not people who might be notable at some point in the future. Whether or not you count him as a professional, there is next to no coverage in third-party sources to meet notability. Also issues with the blatant conflict of interest. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP: I understand all your points, but this conductor IS notable within the Viennese society that he works in - perhaps not notable on a worldwide scale (or, indeed, in Atlanta, Georgia), he is still a part of a certain society that must record his place within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.32.39 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If your idea of notability is what should be considered notable in your opinion, you've come to the wrong website. On Wikipedia, notability is measured by coverage in reliable independent third-party sources - and for a good reason: anyone can argue that someone is notable within a certain society. If you can't find coverage in third-party sources to back up your case, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia no matter how much you argue it should be. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop voting, you only get one vote. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a magazine interview with Jackson would be a good source, provided the magazine itself qualified as a reliable source. Are we talking Time, Newsweek, or a trade publication like Classical Music?   Ravenswing  14:23, 29 November 2010 (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.