Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Cummings

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. Tim Song (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cummings

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

The article has not a single solid reference, is too short, is about someone unknown, and is a MEGASTUB (only 2 lines) Yet this Phil Bridger wants that the page should not be deleted.

Please check if the article should be deleted or not. SONI (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a bit of personal promotion. Of no international "importance". Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. No evidence this person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." — Satori Son 12:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found such sources in the Google Books returns by adding the word cello. For example, "plays with gentle nobility", "foremost among" and "In the same league are Douglas Cummings and the Lindsay Quartet, who achieve an inner intensity seldom heard in this piece". Abductive (reasoning) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This AfD has not been correctly filed. There is no AfD notice on the article. The link in the deletion discussions list goes to the article not here. Nor has the nominator had the courtesy to notify the article's creator. I have notified an administrator and asked him to sort this out. After which I will elaborate on why this is one of the most thoughtless AfDs I have ever seen. Voceditenore (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep A sourced article on the principal chair in the London symphony Orchestra, one of the the most important orchestras in the world. Anyone who holds any chair in that orchestra is worth a WP article, because everyone in an orchestra like that, or any of the other principal symphony orchestras, does have international importance. Any such chair is more or less the equivalent of being on a national team in the Olympics, and the principal of a section is equivalent to a prize-winner there. Not that international importance is needed for notability, much less than that. Its one of the disgraces of WP that we have insufficient articles on this type of subject. If we have to start with stubs, so much the worse, but it is a way of starting and there is no rule against that. I've put the notices on, but it does not take an admin to do that. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to resort to invented rules to claim notability; the subject has been treated by secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not much else to add to what DGG and Voceditenore stated above.--Technopat (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources currently in article consitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Strongest possible keep Not only what DGG said. He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Music.[1]. He was the youngest person ever to be made Principal Cello of the London Symphony Orchestra (he was 19). [2] He has had a distinguished recording career as a soloist (see the reviews in Gramophone alone). [3] Note also that this article was created by an editor who created several articles on noted cellists, not by the article's subject. Calling it self-promotion, is baseless and even if it were true, it has no bearing on notability and is no reason to delete. I would also like to know how long each of you who opined "delete" actually took to look for further references. Voceditenore (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is a notable musician and his career is covered by independent media.--Karljoos (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "this Phil Bridger" mentioned in the nomination. The nominator's main complaint, in both the two WP:PROD tags put on the article and this nomination, seems to be that the article is too short. How can that problem be fixed by reducing the length to zero by deleting it? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2010 (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.