Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Clement Adams


 * 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 keep. For all of the reasons put forward by those advocating Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

John Clement Adams

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

See discussion at User talk:Sungodtemple/Archives/2. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm vipavipa, I created this article, it is my first attempt at article creation. Sungodtemple gave some interesting feedback. Going through some of the deletion process pages, I feel this article shouldn't have any issues with verifiability, advertisement, vanity, or hoax. We might have beef with violating the No Original Research policy, as to my knowledge there has been no scholarly research done on John Clement Adams. This Wikipedia article is indeed the closest thing to John Clements Adams biography or research that exists.

Accordingly, it follows that we might also have beef with notability. Because I bombed the article with citations, attempting to make the Selected Works look like a database (sorry, another no-no), it may be difficult or time-consuming for someone to review them for notability. There is a NYTimes article cited with some coverage of John Clement Adams, but also reviews in other local newspapers. From a purely professional point of view, is it notable to have been a 30-year chair of the composition department in Boston's second largest conservatory?

I have two general questions, could editors help enlighten? -Question about the 'no original research' policy. I have collected some biographical information about John Clement Adams that hasn't been collected anywhere else, all from verifiable sources. Does this constitute original research? If I take this biographical information and publish it myself elsewhere besides on Wikipedia, even on a generally accepted biographical information website, would it then be acceptable to cite?

-I discovered after publishing the article that there exists a German-language article for John Clement Adams, created earlier this year. I am curious, does the deletion policy affect all languages? My article currently cites all the articles the German-language article cites.

Vipavipa (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)vipavipa


 * No you can't just write the article somewhere else and then cite it here. Because that's nonsense. No, deleting on enwiki has no impact on other language wikipedias. Yes, assembling information may well be considered original research. JMWt (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - very brief mentions do not give notability. Given the admissions above by the editor above, I think we would need to see some very good RS to keep this page. Or even to just continue this conversation. JMWt (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: To expand on JMWt's comments, each foreign language Wikipedia is an autonomous entity. Over the years, practices and standards have diverged, and articles that pass notability muster on one wiki might not pass on another.  The English Wikipedia is stricter than many, and there's no guarantee that a source that passes muster on another Wikipedia automatically does here; it needs to be examined not only on its own merits, but with an eye towards the policies and guidelines in play here. Now to answer more of Vipavipa's questions, there's a distinction between sources that bolster notability, and sources which support pertinent facts.  For instance, the Boston Globe piece cited in the article ("New life for some neglected works") only namedrops the subject, but it's certainly a valid citation for the title and date of composition of the work of Adams performed in that concert, and it's usable in any article that might list that work.  As far as whether gathering information from reliable sources constitutes original research, goodness, no: it's the fundamental building block of article creation.  However ... no; the rules governing citing your own published works are stringent.  You can only do that if you yourself are a recognized authority in the field, and there are other reliable sources affirming that you are, and even there editors are cautioned to think very hard before doing so. Moving on to the subject at hand, having gone over the sources, I'm satisfied that there's just enough sigcov there to support the notability of the subject.    Ravenswing      13:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough sourcing to warrant a pass of WP:GNG and maybe WP:COMPOSER. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, AFD is more about what sources exist to show notability, rather than the current state of the article, as per WP:NEXIST. I don't think this is a WP:TNT situation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep:, as I see no valid reason for deletion. Sahaib (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, while the article is in definite need of improvement, I don't think deletion is warranted, and the questions raised by Vipavipa could have been addressed on the article Talk page before this article was nominated for deletion.--TommyBoy (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the nominator has not given a reason for deletion. When articles are tagged for deletion a valid reason should be given. See Deletion policy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:16, 26 October 2022 (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.