Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Rust (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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Joel Rust
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability. Only claim to fame is winning a competition for young composers, which doesn't count under WP:COMPOSER. Only references cited are BBC and the Guardian, who were the joint promoters of the competition. Previous AfD nomination was survived per WP:HEY but no significant improvement has been made in nearly two years. Deskford (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Deskford (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Deskford (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly at present the only coverage is to do with winning a junior competition, although good it fails to meet the usual standards of WP:COMPOSER as stated by nom. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep—according to the BBC source, the competition's winner received a commission to compose a work which would be performed at a BBC Prom. I think that this constitutes a "notable composition" as per WP:COMPOSER. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm adding some sources and material now. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this qualifies as a notable composition. The winner of a junior music composer award gets the prize of having a composition of theirs played at the BBC prom does not meet the guidelines at all. However, I will hold full judgement on this until I have seen the additions you are making. Polargeo (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's also had compositions played at the Tate Modern, has been reviewed by the renowned journal Tempo, had his work performed by the prestigious Britten Sinfonia in front of a veritable audience of Cambridge University music-students (none of these concerts are directly linked to his winning of the competition, they didn't form part of the reward or anything)... I feel sure that he "has credit for writing a notable composition" and thus satisfies WP:COMPOSER. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have done some good work adding these sources to the article but I have looked through them all and they do not show evidence to me of any sufficient coverage of the individual or suggest that he has written any notable compositions that would pass the notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that (as far as I can tell) notability of compositions – as opposed to composers – isn't defined, could you perhaps explain why you consider each of the following points to be non-notable? (1)—winners' reward piece played at a BBC Prom. (2)—piece played in the Tate Modern gallery. (3)—glowing review from a respected academic journal. (4)—piece played by a renowned ensemble to a distinguished audience, together with glowing comments from the orchestra's PR department. Thanks in advance. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The performance was not part of the main Proms season, but an additional event branded "Proms Young Composers Winners' Day": see Proms Plus coverage. --Deskford (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—I think that this may be one of those rare cases where it's worth looking over the two disclaimers here (original emphasis): "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included," and "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Notability." And I think that he does qualify under that standard. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Africa, Asia and the UN  ─╢ 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course people can qualify under general notability even if they don't quite meet the specific guidelines but I think the most "significant" coverage for him is for the single event of winning the young composer award. Further coverage of him as a composer is not that impressive or significant yet. I think more significant coverage of him is needed to push this case over the margin. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Polargeo.  While I believe this young gentleman will go far, he is not yet notable.  The sources provide trivial mentions at best, and fail the very basic of notability guidelines at WP:N.  ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Klein zach  01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Since this article managed to survive a previous AfD (though only by the skin of its teeth), it would seem appropriate to go through each of the points in WP:MUSIC that tell against it.
 * Main Criteria for composers and lyricists
 * Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - not established in either article or sources (Bilingual and Justianian I are not shown to be notable. Paraprosdokia will be discussed shortly.)
 * Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. - not applicable (not an opera composer etc)
 * Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. - not established in either article or sources
 * Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. - not established in either article or sources (Paraprosdokia was explicitly judged in a competition "established expressly for newcomers" for that is precisely what the BBC PROMS/Guardian Young Composer Competition is.)
 * Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. - not established in either article or sources
 * Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music. - not established in either article or sources (the Tempo article seems to have either vanished or been mis-cited; tubagility is hardly "standard"; musicmanifesto is a campaign designed for young musicians; the Britten Sinfonia site merely recounts one of their workshops which performed some of his works; and, indeed, neither of the other sources (BBC website, Guardian) are exactly "standard reference books on his or her genre of music", though they are maintained by reliable editors often involved in reviewing music and orchestral works, but rather they are news sources relating his success at the Proms/Guardian competition—and in fact, both are far too close to the source for obvious reasons.)


 * This leaves us with the Others
 * Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. - not established in either article or sources
 * Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list. - not established in either article or sources
 * Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. - not established in either article or sources
 * Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. - not established in either article or sources
 * Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. - not established in either article or sources


 * WP:HEY was cited in the previous AfD as the main reason for the !keep result. However, the article has still not been brought up to standard and, it would appear, cannot be, so this argument cannot be used again, IMO.


 * The standard disclaimer was cited above (failure to meet standards is not proof of NN etc), but that is not a "standard", merely a warning that the person really might be notable despite all apperances to the contrary, which is fair enough. However, no one is saying the "article must be deleted", just that it probably should be.  Must needs copyvio or personal details or hate-content etc.  Should needs more thought.  I say the article should be deleted because the composer is not established as notable in any reliable sources I can find nor can all the claims in the article be verified at present.


 * Sorry for the long explanation: I spent about 4 hours on this AfD trying to establish notability and verify all the info because the previous AfD failure seemed to suggest there was far more to this young composer. Perhaps more had been written about him since 2008? However, I could not find it.  It is also notable that the Britten Sinfonia were cited enbloc as claiming great things for him and that Peter Wiegold has no article.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum - The precise quote from the Britten Sinfonia website is: "...some of the most talented young composers we've heard in a long while - all names to watch out for in the coming years!" In other words, he is not singled out by the editor of this website but rather included in a polite mention of several composers whose work was played at the Cambridge University Composers' Workshop which happened to involve members of the sinfonia.  Kate Whitley, Jonathan Coffer, Tom Kimber and Frances Balmer were all included in the acclaim as well.  Note the redness...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Addendum - interestingly, User:Whitley.kate who may or may not be the same Kate Whitley found above created this article. --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:42, 22 January 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.