Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelaine Jones


 * 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Madelaine Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources do not support notability under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:COMPOSER Walkabout14 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would debate that of course they don't show notability under these sections, as they are listed as neither: stating that Madelaine Jones is a 'writer' is not the same as an author, and as referenced, there is proof of win in a national competition and previous reviewing for an international review site. The composer section, similarly: it says that she studied composition, not that she is a composer (more for background colour than anything). If having these details is an issue, I'm sure there's a way the article can be amended, given that she's given premieres etc. and I don't think there's any debate about her article being here as a pianist? larkinsonpublic (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice - just another working writer, reviewing for an obscure website and once winning an obscure minor prize. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  06:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But the whole point is that she's not a writer: the whole point is that she's actually a pianist- the writing stuff is to give background. If you think it's irrelevant or pointless, fair enough, it can be changed, but she's given the UK premiere of Emile Naoumoff's Passacaglia, a piece which is published by Schott, and he is a noteable composer. So I don't think it's fair to delete the article. It may need changing, fair enough, but deletion I think is not taking into account the rest of the content. (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I still don't see that she meets the General Notability Guideline, WP:GNG or more specifically any of the criteria listed in for musicians under WP:MUSBIO. Walkabout14 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep According to section 1, the subject must have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". There are two newspapers on the list of references, which are trustworthy, independent and non-trivial sources. While, granted, it means the notability is not necessarily that of super-stardom, it still fulfils the criterion and so the article is relevant, if only worthy of a stub. larkinsonpublic (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I put on my 'talk' page, but thought it applicable to mention here, that I amended to article so that it does not include comments on Madelaine's writing activities, given the relevance/notability of this was disputed by Orange Mike   and I took this into account. larkinsonpublic (talk) 00:11, 22 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.