Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jori Chisholm (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   keep. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jori Chisholm
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article feels highly promotional and is complete with "Trivia" section. Perhaps marginally notable on competitive success - first place at Oban - but there are many other pipers in the same position. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  kikichugirl  speak up! 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - for all the  multiple reasons documented at Articles for deletion/Jori Chisholm. To  relaunch  an AfD is a farce and the nominator clearly has an agenda against such  articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reason cited "there are many other pipers in the same position" is hardly a reason for deletion, but I would argue a reason for inclusion of a page for other pipers in the same position. This was mentioned in a previous discussion also.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9980:99:CDD5:AC82:45B3:5213 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Relaunch of AfD is completely unreasonable, as it betrays a personal vendetta against subject, and ignores subject's many detailed achievements of notability, all of which are given within scope of article; namely, 1) subject is a notable ensemble performer, with Simon Fraser University Pipe Band, with other notable ensemble performances with the Chieftains, and with the Bob Weir group Ratdog, which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #6; 2) subject has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works, appearing in the New York Times, Piping Today, and American Profile magazine, which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #1; 3) AfD nominator's inane suggestion that subject is "perhaps marginally notable on competitive success" indicates that nominator did not READ article. Subject won 1st place in several major music competitions, including 2 times winning 1st place at Cowal Highland Gathering (Open 'A' Piobaireachd) in 2008 and 2010; winning 1st place 4 times at US Gold Medal Piping Championships in 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2014; and winning 1st place in 'A' Marches at Argyllshire Gathering in Oban in 2001, all of which satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #9. Subject is not "marginally notable", but is VERY notable. Please keep article on subject. ~jungstensgericht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungstensgericht (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agreeing with the entry above re "there are many other pipers in the same position". There should be many more pipers with pages in wiki, and this performer should be one of them.  He is one of the most notable professional pipers in the USA, is highly regarded by many other notable professional pipers from around the world and has made significant contributions to the art.  AfD discussion should be closed with no further action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.98.11 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (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.