Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Oliver (violinist)


 * 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. Google and google news searches prove notability. Malinaccier (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary Oliver (violinist)

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

Article was prod'ed but was removed by a new user. The article has no reliable sources and fails notability. Bidgee (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep With respects, this search shows ntability in RS exists. Article author should have included them. But thier lack is no reson to delete.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I see notability with a standard Google web search, but Google News and Google Book searches don't bring up any reliable sources. Jeremiah (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point is what exactly? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that it may seem notable based on the Google web hits, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's enough reliable information out there to actually source the article. Jeremiah (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The dance group she heads does not appear to be notable (nor is there a claim that it is). The article doesn't cite the conventional indicia of notability for musicians (soloing or playing with notable orchestras, winning competitions, etc.). The list of composers whose work she has performed does not give sufficient context for why those performances are notable, nor does the list of musicians she has performed with. For you Googlers and other claimers of notability, why not spend a couple minutes improving the article instead of defending it here? Bongomatic (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects, you could have done so yourself. Not having notability sourced in an article is no reason to send it to AfD. When I visited earlier, I did not have the time to do more than look or I would have worked on the article then. However, I just spent the last hour at the article and it is much better. Thanks for your patience.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we please keep the "You could have added sources" off this AfD since this AfD is not the place to discuss who should add what. I will say this, No editor who has not added content to an article should have to source it. Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: per the work that MQS did to the article. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 12:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good to see the article has had work done to it with a better layout and with reliable sources (I don't have any doubts on the sources ATM) but I still feel the article lacks notability which needs to be explained why she's notable? Bidgee (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe notability in her field is shown by the sourced statement "Her equally brilliant work as an improviser is a rarity in the ranks of first-rate classical interpreters", which shows that even her peers consider her work outstanding... and they'd know better than I. She is qualified as notable under WP:NP subsection WP:CREATIVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As well as the sources in the article a Google News search comes up with loads more reliable sources, contrary to what is stated above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2008 (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.