Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Chapman (organist)


 * 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   Redirect to Wanamaker Organ. As fascinating as the subject of this article is, the arguments brought by those suggesting deletion are stronger than those brought by those suggesting keep, and Dr. Chapman seems to fall just on the wrong side of notability. WP:MUSIC lists 12 criteria do demonstrate notability for a performer. 1) We do not have multiple non-trivial reliable sources. The blogs and personal recollections, as enthusiastic as they are, are not reliable/verifiable sources in this case. Similarly, there is no charted or gold album, no concert tour, the Vantage and Monette labels appear to be neither major nor important indie labels, the book has no text but is solely musical score (see http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51006094&referer=brief_results, has not been the subject of a broadcast, is not considered the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city, etc. The argument to keep based on the inherent static nature of pipe organs developing a local history which may extend to the organist can be satisfactorily filled by redirecting this article to Wanamaker Organ where Dr. Chapman is mentioned. Being an above-average organist is wonderful, but is not ipso facto evidence of notability. Similarly, having the skills to be notable does not automatically make one notable. Lastly, while it is true that wikipedia is not paper, it still has criteria for notability that we need to follow. I will be happy to userfy this for someone and if more work can be done to fill at least one of the 12 criteria, the article can be recreated without prejudice, but at this point, sadly, this article does not meet our notability requirements. -- Avi (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith Chapman (organist)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject was an organist in a department store. There isn't anything in this article that suggests he accomplished anything noteworthy. The "musical legacy" section is just a series of anecdotes about him. The references are poor. I don't see any reason why this man is entitled to a Wikipedia article LargoLarry (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. There is noting notable about this individual. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination from newly created SPA. Google search shows subject has notable enough recording career. Subject may be notable in an unlikely way, but there's enough coverage out there to justify an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhat poor article, mainly written by two new users. Lots of sources and Ghits to make a nice article out of it. Also note, that the two main editors were not informed of this discussion. Especially new, not yet welcomed editors should be guided to AfD if their first article is discussed for deletion. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. It's odd that a new account would go straight to AFDs, but the person is right, the article does not belong here per notability rules. IF the new users who created it provide sources that actually meet our standards they can add them to the article, or recreate the article later. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Main contributor to the article is User:Sallyrob, who definitely is not a new editor. He began contributing in October 2006. He has a history of creating articles about subjects that interest him personally but aren't notable enough to meet Wikipedia requirements - at least three of them were deleted within the past couple of weeks. References cited in this article include Capuchino High School yearbooks and the San Bruno Herald, although no specific article or issue of the latter is mentioned. Another reference cited makes no mention of Chapman at all. Most of the information cites the book Music in the Marketplace: The Story of Philadelphia's Wanamaker Organ by Ray Biswanger  as a source. This appears to be a Wanamaker in-house publication. I am willing to bet the passages in this article citing it as a source were copied verbatim from the book. (A phrase like "Keith, who was a brilliant performer and masterful transcriber, was considered to be a godsend for the Wanamaker Organ" certainly sounds like it came from promotional material. And aren't adjectives such as "brilliant" and "masterful" considered POV?) As for Chapman's "notable enough" recording career, I found only two recordings by him ( and ). He also wrote a book about himself, now out-of-print . If Chapman's tenure as an organist in a department store makes him notable, then does it follow that the people who preceded and followed him in this position deserve articles, too? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the high school year book cite is a bit much. The article creator is a former newspaperman, according to his personal page, and it appears he knew of Chapman from his days with the San Bruno Herald. I don't think it's fair to categorize him as a serial creator of non-notable articles. He's had some images deleted of late to do fair use issues, but what of it? I can't imagine your last question is serious but the answer is no: finding that Chapman meets the notability guidelines would not make others in the same position automatically notable. Lastly, the article creator was a working journalist so it's possible he wrote the phrase you describe as possible copy vio . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wrong. Article creator was Wehtam721, the first revison already had 4kb. Sallyrob first appeared after more than 20 revision by Wehtam721, Nightscribe and some anon IPs . And even IF Sallyrob had written the whole article alone, that still would not make the topic unnotable. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

was active in Philadelphia, the local newspapers often talked about his great accomplishments with the Wanamaker organ. There is evidence, too, that he played elsewhere. I'm sure a case could be made for including Keith in Wikipedia simply because of his recordings and his book, all of which are available through various websites. I was NOT the major contributor to the article, but added a few items that I was able to verify from the Capuchino High School yearbooks. I also verified his birth and death dates on an organ website. Undoubtedly, there needs to be more research to establish Keith's importance as a concert organist.Sallyrob (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Keith Chapman has several pages of listings at Google. He recorded several albums, which have been reissued on CDs.  He is also featured in several video clips on Youtube.  Although I lived in San Bruno, California (Keith's hometown) during the time Keith
 * Comment: If you Google the name Keith Chapman, only two items on the first four pages relate to this particular individual, so to say he has "several pages of listings" is a bit misleading. Two recordings (I don't find any evidence of "several," so if they exist can you direct us to where they are listed? Thanks!) and an autobiography (possibly a vanity project, at that) do not establish notability. As 209.247.22.166 points out, a lot of the phrasing in this article sounds like it was copied from the sources cited, which unfortunately can't be checked easily, and he's correct when he says Chapman isn't mentioned at all at another referenced source. The Wikipedia guidelines state, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see sufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources here at all, so my vote remains delete. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as obviously very notable to some people. Disc space is cheap. WP's not Brittanica, instead it's a world of organized, useful facts. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The fact a subject is "obviously very notable to some people" is not a valid reason for allowing an article to remain. It needs to meet the notability guidelines, which this does not. Also, disc space has nothing to do with the issue. Do you have a legitimate reason to support keeping this article? LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing illegitimate in what I wrote. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, neither "obviously very notable to some people" nor "Disc space is cheap" are valid arguments for keeping an article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment How does it happen that LargoLarry, a new user, comes across an obscure article and sends it to AfD as his first edit? LK (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and everything said in support of deletion. MovieMadness (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, unless someone in Philly can produce some great refs proving notability, I don't see how it meets general notability or WP:MUSIC, alas. Interesting read, though. Flew into a box canyon. Damn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep listen non music majors, curtis graduates have the skills to be notable, but i will supply the verifiable reviews. this "department store" organ is the largest in the US.  this article is better than the average performer on the list of organists.   pohick (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * listen, curtis graduates may indeed have the skills -- but do you have the refs? I'd be happy to change my vote. Just give me a real reason. (We know the organ is notable, that's why it has an article.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (aside - kinda like saying Basilique Ste-Clotilde, Paris is notable, but César Franck, Gabriel Pierné, Charles Tournemire, Joseph-Ermend Bonnal, Jean Langlais, Jacques Taddei are not)(with organists the players go to the instrument)
 * WP:NM - Musician 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels = Vantage, Organ Historical Society; 7 - Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city = Friends of wannamakers; 10 - Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album = A Song After Sundown; 12 - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network = Pipedreams, (along with wanamaker organ and Conte); other 5 - Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture = NGO, Friends of wannaker; not in criteria - published arrangement organ book frequently used by musicians, play concert before peer musicians (implied honor).
 * these organists are a funny subculture, we would agree that Virgil Fox, and E. Power Biggs are notable, and your average church organist is not. however, where to draw the line?  A sustained career at a premier instrument seems notable to me, because of time, 20 years ago, it will be hard to find newspaper reviews in the archives (that you won't be able to link to)  pohick (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this article. Because of the nature of pipe organs (fixed in one specific location for decades at a time) many organs will develop their own history, which, as evidenced by the article in place for the Wanamaker organ itself, can become extensive. The titular organists of such significant organs are, as a part of the instruments' history, also worthy of some mention, especially in the case of the Wanamaker, with its incredibly prestigious status. --Eppeh (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eppeh (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject appears notable. Numerous external sources cited. Additionally, numerous other sources can be gleaned by a google search on Organ "Keith Chapman". LK (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't assume he's a new user. It's possible he's been around for a while and finally created an account because only registered users can nominate an AFD.
 * This article has been expanded extensively since I originally voted to delete it. It now has a lot more reliable references, although I think some of the added facts constitute padding rather than genuinely important information. For example, the list of his students seems unnecessary, since none of them are notable. I am going to clean up some of the grammar and correct some of the punctuation errors and change my vote to keep (with reservations). LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree the list of students (that i added) was a little much. there is a list of at least 10-20 references to the subject in resumes (those were the first 4). tends to go to broad pedagogy influence. pohick (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (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.