Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Cartwright


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Joan Cartwright

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Energetic self-promotion by a wannabe jazz diva (yes, she uses "diva" as an honorific) which, when the name-dropping is stripped away, adds up to nothing much. Calton | Talk 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  16:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is clearly promotional and needs heavy cleanup if it is to be kept. But those arguing to delete have not provided any evidence that she is not notable and do not show any evidence of the research that one is supposed to do before proposing an article for deletion, see WP:BEFORE.  An assertion that a page is promotional or vain, not backed by any evidence, should not be given any weight in deletion discussions at all!  Cazort (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There's no such burden to prove non-notability -- how exactly do you prove a negative, anyways? -- and in fact the burden is precisely the opposite: those arguing for or adding entries are the ones who have to demonstrate notability for inclusion. --Calton | Talk 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE reads:
 * When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
 * When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.
 * These guidelines, which I agree with wholeheartedly, very strongly support my comment. I want to clarify too, I am not asking to "prove" non-notability, I am simply asking you to explain how the article violates policy, rather than merely stating it does.  Cazort (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those suggestions -- which don't even rise to the level of "guideline" -- aren't even close to having the slightest relevance to the correcting your misstatement regarding the absolute requirement of evidence for inclusion. I repeat, no one has to prove non-notability. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my remark came across as attacking you--that is not my intent. And to clarify again, I do not think anyone needs to "prove" non-notability (or notability)...making a recommendation based on intuition is fine, that's what AfD is all about.  But the key here is to share the reasoning (and research) behind your intuition with other editors.  This is crucial to maintaining a constructive atmosphere on AfD's.  I made my comment because I was concerned that both the nomination and JuJube's comments are simply stating an opinion, without explaining how the article meets/violates policy...that's the relevance to what I cited in WP:BEFORE.  If you had done research before nominating this article, it would have been helpful to share that with you (i.e. did you do any searches for sources, what did you find, why were the sources you found inadequate for establishing notability, etc.).  If you do this ahead of time, you will find that editors will give more weight to your opinions and most of the AfD's you nominate go through a quick snowball delete.  Cazort (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I find a single album of hers:  but it seems to be with a not-well-known label.  She has released a songbook, but it is self-published through lulu.com.  Searching for material on her is tricky because so many people share that name.  But I have found some coverage, see this search: .  Is this enough to establish notability?  I don't think so.  But it's important to be thorough.  Cazort (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable local lounge singer that fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO.....and WP:TROUT her for calling herself a diva. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The language used is indeed promotional, but the subject is worthy of an article per WP:MUSIC. The correct action here is to rewrite, not delete. Owen&times; &#9742;  08:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Changed to Delete per Cazort's findings. Owen&times;  &#9742;  13:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what part of WP:MUSIC you think this should be kept under? I'm not seeing enough coverages in reliable sourcese here.  All I've found is one album on a little-known label, a self-published songbook, and various brief mentions of performances found in a news search.  I'm not finding anything more significant, such as detailed reviews or articles or even sections of articles written about her in detail.  Cazort (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "a self-published songbook"?! Amazon.com has 8 of her books for sale, 4 of them in stock. This doesn't seem to be some fly-by-night self-published nobody, but a well known and influential musician and educator. Owen&times;  &#9742;  18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did a very thorough check on Amazon.com and ALL of her books that I found are self-published. Trafford and lulu.com are both self-publishing outfits, you can easily verify that with a google search.  Anyone with money can pay to have their own works published through such places, and thus, having any number of books published in that manner doesn't say anything about a person's notability.  It's not enough to assert that someone is a "well-known and influential musician and educator"--this must be demonstrated in reliable sources.  Find newspaper features, scholarly works, anything with some editorial integrity, that says this, or that provides biographical information or any kind of detailed coverage, and we can save the article!  But I have expended considerable effort in searching for such sources and haven't found enough to establish notability--but if you have good sources, please by all means share them!  I would like to save every article, it's just that some topics don't have enough coverage in reliable sources to allow writing of a quality article.  Cazort (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you convinced me; changed to Delete. Good investigative work, Cazort! Owen&times; &#9742;  13:19, 14 July 2009 (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.