Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Addison

Susan Addison

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Also fails to meet WP:NPROF and WP:MUSICBIO. In short, nothing exists out there that isn't purely run-of-the-mill coverage of a working musician doing their job. As you can see, I went through all of the possible notability criteria that would apply and examined their thresholds for inclusion - unfortunately none of them provide a reason that this person should have a Wikipedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most important period instrument artists of the trombone, Addison clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion no. 6. She was in the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra under Sir Simon Rattle for almost five years, is a founding member of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment where she also serves as Principal Trombonist, in addition to being a member of the English Baroque Soloists and Orchestra Revolutionnaire et Romantique for twenty-two years under Sir John Eliot Gardiner. Zingarese (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Addison passes criterion #5 per recordings on Philips Records and Decca. Zingarese (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources that match the Biography of Living Persons Policy's strict requirements? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her biography at Allmusic and at Discogs, as well as this Guardian piece and BBC article about her playing Elgar's own trombone state that she was in the CBSO for five years, was a founding member (and principal trombone) of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment (no. 6), and featured in recordings for not only Philips and Decca like I mentioned, but also on RCA, Hyperion, Erato, Decca, and Harmonia Mundi (no. 5). Zingarese (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that just looks like basic verification rather than in-depth stuff. @GorgeCustersSabre: What do you think? It's very very borderline, but if it persuades you, I'm happy to withdraw. Give me a ping. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Exemplo347, yes it's rather borderline. I'll still stick with ~~Delete~~ for now, so let's see what consensus emerges. Thanks, and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Exemplo347: and @GorgeCustersSabre:, Addison has met two of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, documented through the independent reliable sources I have listed. Therefore, saying that Addison is "not at all notable" is not true. In addition, I don't exactly think that the AllMusic biography is not "in-depth". Zingarese (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zingarese, I hope you are fine. What you consider true may not be the same as what another editor considers true. It’s best not to try to dictate the meaning you see in any evidence. We disagree over it. That’s my right. It’s not personal. A consensus will perhaps now form and an administrator will make a decision. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgeCustersSabre: It was not at all my intention to come off as snarky, and I am sorry if it seemed like I did. However, I have provided the Wikipedia notability guideline for musical artists, and the subject of this article has met not only one, but two of the criteria. Her meeting of this criteria is well documented through independent and reliable sources. I don’t “consider” it true that this musician is notable. She is notable because she has clearly met the guidelines for inclusion. It would be very shallow if I let my personal feelings dictate my stance on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Zingarese (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zingarese. Your courteous reply is very much appreciated. Thank you. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep as WP:Creative. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I incorporated the references given above[1][2][3][4] as well as one more from the Independent which talks about her in depth.[5] I think she passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources that are independent of the subject. She is known for her research in historical trombones (as indicated by the discussion in the articles above about her research work with Edward Elgar's trombone) and was awarded an Hon.RAM from the Royal Academy of Music in 2002, which may not quite satisfy WP:NACADEMIC but I think it does add a little bit to her notability. I also added several references to verify each piece of information in the article. However, the most strong reason I believe the article passes the notability test is due to WP:MUSICBIO because the subject "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." She was a founding member and principle trombone player for the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, and a founding member and 25-year player of His Majestys Sagbutts & Cornetts. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]