Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Springthorpe


 * 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 - though the subject seems potentially notable, sufficient time has been given for the production of the necessary reliable sources, and they have not been forthcoming. Consensus is that the notability standard has not been met. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nigel Springthorpe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unverifiable self-promotion BLP, violating WP:Autobiography, WP:Notability, WP:Conflict of interest (see editing history). -Kez (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing notable here; it reads like a resume.West Eddy (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I do not know who created this entry in the first place (personally I woudn't know how to!), but I have, of late, been keeping it up to date. Everything here is verifyable. If you Google titles of books and names of choirs, for instance, all the fact are easily found on-line. I would ask as a courtesy that the lists of academic publications remain - these are here not as a point of vanity but rather to show researchers where to locate important articles on aspects of 18th century musicological research - surely that is what encyclpaedias are for? - the dissemniation of knowledge? Also, it would be normal for encyclopaedic entries on composers to list their works. In the case of Beethoven this would be by opus no.- with Mozart it is by Koechel no. I do not have opus numbers but this is a list of all the published works, which is growing all the time herev theybv atre listed by publication date. I can see perhaps why you might feel this article is a bit like a CV - what is absent, perhaps, is more biographical detail - and perhaps this should be added, but I have been extremely shy to do this myself and have not wished to unduly change the wording of original article - whoever wrote that. You have seen much more activity of late with the editing since it has been a rather productive year with some 20 new musical works being published and 6 new text books in the last 12 months. I would be extremely disppointed if you felt that the article shoud be deleted. I would hope that as a contributor to some of the most prestigious musicalogical publications in the world and as a composer whose works are perfomed all the way around the world that 'Nigel Spingthorpe' would merit an entry on this encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.56.193 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep not for WP:Prof but for musical activities. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC).
 * You are comparing yourself to Mozart and Beethoven? Really? The article is not lacking biographical detail, because the neither biographical detail, nor the list of published works is notable. This is self-promotion, not the "dissemination of knowledge" and the lack of verifiable references confirms that this is a (non-notable) vanity project. Nobody voting to "Keep" has thus far adequately proved the article's notability, and nor has there been any attempt to address the clear conflict of interest in the article's construction. -Kez (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ACADEMIC – his publications and his role as Trinity College examiner. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How does being an examiner establish his notability? It clearly states on WP:ACADEMIA that "School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. They are rather evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession" - and so this article does not pass the test. Just because he has had works published does not mean that he has had a "substantial impact" in the field. -Kez (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 In particular, I urge the anon editor to add the material he has available: additional publications would certainly help. So would reviews of his compositions, if available, and information about professional performances and recordings. I agree it's usual to list all the works of a composer; as for publications, we normally list only the peer-reviewed formal published ones, not unpublished presentations. And might I suggest articles on JG and JC Rollig? They'd be useful in any event. If the Boult prize is notable, an article on it listing the awardees would be good also.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Yet another clear-cut case of vanity.  When will these people realize that having a Wikipedia page about them is a liability when they're not notable enough to afford a P.R. firm to police Wikipedia?  James470 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reads as a resume, I have been unable to locate reliable source coverage to help pass either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2011 (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.