Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Dienes


 * 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   no consensus. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Katherine Dienes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

1. notability in doubt 2. most likely claim of "most senior" cannot be verified due to source registration (and intro hints that several women were appointed possibly not making her the first) - the exceptional claim needs exceptional refs 3. cannot verify claims/linkrot/lack of WP:RS Widefox (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * comment: I think most of the material here was originally added by me, some while ago, in a bit of a hurry, and I apologise for the weak referencing. It did all came from sources, more or less reliable, though: I don't think there's any 'original research'. I'll see if I can track down some trustworthy sources to add. mooncow 18:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * comment: btw, the opening line of the Church Times article reads "At Guildford on 1 January, Katherine Dienes-Williams became the first serving woman organist and master of the choristers in any of England’s 43 Anglican cathedrals", which I think clarifies the possible ambiguity implied by the intro description and provides an authoritative source for the exceptional claim. It can be checked at good libraries -- not all references can always be free online, though I agree it's good when they can be. I'll update the ref to a form that includes the quote and can be checked in periodical/journal libraries as well as online. mooncow 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment:appreciate that Mooncow. question is: news or encyclopaedia? Widefox (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yup, often the issue with BLP when events are still recent. Church Times is not your average newspaper, but neither is it a reviewed academic journal... I'll see what else I can find. mooncow 15:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - added a couple of sources, one of them (Ext links) Guildford Cathedral itself - in the circumstances, I think we can assume a reliable source, just as it isn't exactly likely the Church Times was making it all up. It is now certain that the subject of this article is notable on the grounds stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are helpful (although primary, independent?). WP:BLP1E seems appropriate with this BLP - biog claim for notability seems to be for "first" event and nothing else, and the preferred option is an entry on the event. The event seems so minor that it would not justify an article in itself anyhow. This reasoning against policy and after a search for sources makes me confident this BLP and event is newsworthy but fails notability. Can you reason your confidence? Widefox (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, if she was known only for being woman 1 in job x, then I'd certainly agree. But she isn't. I thought I was adding sources just to show that the facts were correct as they seemed from the tagging to be in dispute. Since we're now ok with those, question the next is, is her fame ongoing and widespread with material in reliable sources? I think so, and will add sources to show that. Right of you to ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  17:56, 13 June 2012 (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.