Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Mawhinney


 * 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. Onetwo three... 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sophie Mawhinney

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

Sorry, but I don't think "Shropshire Young Musician of the Year 2008" is notable enough for an encyclopedia. See WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. a little   insignificant  19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, though I'm not yet sure to what. Reasoning:  Sophie's article is verifiable from reliable sources, and reliably-sourced material should not be deleted because of WP:PRESERVE.  However, she's not notable enough for her own separate article, so a merge is the only outcome consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's annoying that there doesn't appear to be an appropriate list of musicians.  I'm open to suggestions.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A merge to some sort of list of County Musicians of the Year would merely create a list of almost entirely non-notable student musicians. Searching online, I don't see any further reasons for notability, except possibly a notice of a bankruptcy filing (which I'm pretty sure Sophie would not want enshrined in her Wikipedia article.) Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because she is verifiable does not mean she is important or significant enough to be incorporated in a list or article.  I myself know thousands of verifiable people who don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia.  On the other hand, there is always the list of People who have been described by colleagues as "hard-working" and "great with children." as stated in the article. Drawn Some (talk)
 * With all due respect for Drawn Some's ingenious argument here, I'd like to draw attention to WP:NNC and User:Uncle G/On notability.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I particularly said "important or significant" not "notable". The Uncle G thing is a personal essay and it is too long to read. Drawn Some (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to read it when you do have time. :)  Wikipedia doesn't have any authority figures, but in view of how much of the notability guideline Uncle G actually wrote, in this area he's probably one of the more important of the authority figures Wikipedia doesn't have.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have read the Uncle G article, and it says much the same as WP:NNC - if something is not notable enough for an article, it may be possible to preserve some of its content by merging. But what are we to preserve from this? Not the toddler club and the hard-working bits; only "Sophie won Shropshire Young Musician of the Year 2008." That's verifiable, but is it encyclopedic? and where would we merge it to? It would have to be "List of winners of UK county Young Musician of the Year awards" or "List of UPANDCOMING young musicians", and neither of those really sounds like an encyclopedic article. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, therein lies the rub (and that's the reason why I said "I'm open to suggestions"). If there isn't an appropriate article to merge it to, we'll have to IAR.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE doesn't say all reliably-sourced material should be retained - all sorts of trivia can be reliably sourced. It says it should be retained if it would belong in a "finished" article. I'm not sure this would. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my view's a little more nuanced than that. I think there are reasons why you might delete reliably-sourced material (e.g. a BLP concern, or a copyvio). I do think we should not lightly remove reliably-sourced material from Wikipedia, and I prefer policy-based reasons to do it rather than guideline-based reasons such as WP:N. Having said that, we've spent an awful lot of words on deciding whether to delete this or turn it into a footnote in something like List of musicians from Shropshire or British Young Musician of the Year awards (and if no suitable article exists, my suggestion fails in any case).  I'm minded to do something more productive.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty much all winners of any music competition will be verifiable, as the results are usually published somewhere, or reported in a local paper. Unless the competition is significant (something like Leeds International Pianoforte Competition springs to mind) the winner is not notable. I have also removed personal info that is probably against WP:BLP. Quantpole (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I hope she does well in future, but this is not remotely notable at present. NBeale (talk) 09:56, 17 May 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.