Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan FeBland (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. Should sufficient reliable sources be found at a future date, this article can be recreated, but the consensus here is to delete at this time, as no evidence of notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines are present in the article --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan FeBland
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Poorly sourced BLP. Google news returns exactly two sources: one saying the composer expects 2005 to be great, the other a 1-minute rendition of a piece of music. Google itself returns social networking, blogs, self-published, publishers etc etc No way near notable enough for a BLP these days. Previous debate was poorly attended. Jubilee♫ clipman 00:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly referenced article, no evidence of notability found.--Dmol (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Jubilee♫ clipman  00:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, My GoogleNews search turned up no hits at all. FeBland is only on my watchlist because of some cleaning up I did at Clarinet-cello-piano trio and I have no opinion on his music. But one of his 2 claimed UE publications is still in print and it sets a dangerous precedent to deny notability to composers with major publishers.   I havnt chased down the Musical Times reviews cited by Zachlipton in the previous AfD, but he would seem to pass notability as a performer as well.   Agreed it is a very problematic article, but editing the more self-serving claims is a more obvious remedy than deletion. Sparafucil (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True: the UE publications check out. And we could certainly do with those Musical Times articles.  We aren't setting any precedent here, though, by deleting an article on notable person with no references to speak of: that precedent was set a few months back...  We will have no choice I suspect but to delete if the independent reliable sources aren't found.  Sorry Jonathan!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  08:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Undecided, but commenting anyway. He is a minor composer who hasn't achieved anything particularly notable.  Even so, he has been taken up by publishers and record companies, which makes me think we shouldn't ignore him.  But I cannot bring myself to vote to keep the article in its current poorly written and poorly referenced state.  Can I vote for the article to be deleted and rewritten from scratch with proper sources?  --Deskford (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I have been convinced by Voceditenore's arguments below.  The key point is that there is no evidence that this composer has made any impact.  The pieces that have been published and recorded are trivial and do not seem enough to signify notability.  --Deskford (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've cleaned up the article to remove the puffery and add inline cites, so people can judge from what's really there. True this is a niche area, but there is no evidence that this composer has made any impact at all. Some compositions recorded, but no reviews. Nothing in Google Books. Nothing on Jstor, and one article in a very local news paper which is basically a puff piece. Yes a couple of short pieces published by UE, but observe how many libraries actually hold them. Some might take the position that anyone who has ever published something with a reputable publisher (no matter how short, or whether it is widely held in libraries, or considered noteworthy enough for even one independent critic to review it) is automatically notable enough for an article. I don't.  Voceditenore (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The absence so far of any independent reliable sources which have reviewed or mentioned Febland's music on the the CDs (or even reviewed the CDs) could made up for by the fact that the musicians who have recorded it are highly notable (although, if they were, the CDs would probably have multiple reviews). The clarinettist who included his Miniatures (Deborah de Graaff) and B3 Trio are marginally notable (although it's unclear whether they'd pass an AfD if they had articles. Louis Demetrius Alvanis has a poorly referenced stub on Wikipedia with no real evidence of notability, but it was created by the same editor who has been extensively editing this article  and who has openly identified himself as FeBland. . If independent reviews from reliable sourcs can be provided, I'm willing to change my mind, but until then.... Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 22 May 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.