Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bamping

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. No landslide, but the weight of argument (User:Peter cohen's analysis is particularly convincing) and consensus favors deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bamping

Insufficient notability. Previous afds have established that members of orchestras (which in themselves may be notable) are not necessarily appropriate subjects, unless they perform regularly as soloists as established by independent reviews. Richard Bamping appears in some local Hong Kong publicity media, but I can't find anything substantial. I'd be happy to change my opinion if bona fide reviews can be found and the article improved to push this over the bar. Klein zach 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the points raised by Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:MUSICBIO, criterion 6 - HKPO is a notable orchestra and has certainly had notable conductors. ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Bamping performs as a soloist with HKPO, his name appears also in the programs of chamber recitals and he has performed in Northern America, Japan and Europe. I didn't find any detailed reviews of his playing, any recordings, I admit. However, I think that Wikipedia article may be useful for the readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote annuled per discussion here --Vejvančický (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that he doesn't appear to meet any of the Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Item 1 is the relevant section here, which specifically excludes "reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble". --Klein zach 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the interview in HK Magazine, which is an independent general-interest publication, not "publicity media" (by which I assume the nominator means press release reprints?) and ukexpat's comment. cab (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Do correct me if I am wrong, but I think the HK Magazine is a free handout classified mag available in HK bars etc. In any case, Criteria 1 (see above) states that the person should be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (my emphasis). --Klein zach 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point for WP:RS and WP:N is editorial oversight, not cover price or venue of distribution. Normally I'd agree with you and put a plain old "Delete" for a guy with only one non-trivial source about him, but given that he also may marginally meet one subcriterion of a subject-specific notability guideline, it tips the balance, at least for me. Cheers, cab (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would expect a notable contemporary classical musician to have a recording legacy that would be reviewed in Gramophone (magazine). I've searched their reviews database and archive and found no mention of him. Similarly, I would expect to see a live performance record that mentions notable venues by name and that features reviews in more than local magazines but in the mainstream press. I see no indication of such notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite there yet; insufficient evidence of solo works or pieces. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.