Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chater (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

James Chater
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am unable to find any references that would make the subject meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC (no significant coverage in reliable sources, no reviews of his work). The article makes claims, but all seem unverified per WP:V (and is a policy). I don't see a case for WP:NACADEMIC either, citations don't seem to be great (note that the 3139 cited article is from KF Chater, not James Chater). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be a distinguished early musicologist, although I wish I could find more sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Ping @User:Antandrus Xxanthippe (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Comment That is non-existing keep rationale though, dissapointed. WP:NRV. It's actually my big mistake I opened this, since it of course will be kept on unverifiable basis and rationale. Eh. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Espresso Addict in 2009 AfD discussion: "publications by "J Chater" are cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves as well as one in The Oxford Companion to Music, which suggests he is a significant expert in his specialised area." TSventon (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Even putting the "significant expert suggestion", which I certainly don't agree with at all.... the evidence for that is...where? I will again refer to WP:NRV, and the fact that nobody refers to an actual policy, which is WP:V. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply The evidence is in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, WP:V allows reliable sources which are not easily accessible. TSventon (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that (WP:AGF and WP:PAPERONLY applies), what I meant is how does that establish his notability (for which WP:NRV and thus WP:V applies as something has to be cited as a reference)? I would have agreed if he had a biography in there, but it just seems he is cited there (and as I mentioned above, he is actually very poorly cited all-around to pass Criteria 1 of PROF). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Being cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves suggests that Chater passes Criteria 1 of PROF. Unfortunately, as PROF says, "in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)." TSventon (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My inclination is not to delete, but this is a *very* undersourced BLP. Grove's seems not to be independent of the subject, as he says he was an editor of it 1997-2000. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Citations of his work in 14 encylopedia entries is not sufficient for passing WP:PROF. If there was an encyclopedia article about him or at least an article discussing some of his contributions in more detail, that would have been a different matter. I looked around a bit for published reviews of his work but did not find them either. The WP article hasn't been improved since the 2009 AfD. Moreover, as was brought up in the first AfD, this is a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY case. Given that the notability here, if it exists, seems to be borderline, the WP:AUTO considerations push this case into the delete column for me. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 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.