Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gasser

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. John254 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gasser

Mark Gasser may indeed be a notable musician. However, I have been unable to verify most of the facts given in this article with reliable sources, and the main author(s) has ignored repeated requests for citations leading me to believe that this article is mostly original research. Given that 'the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth' I am bringing it to AfD. Delete unless citations to reliable sources are provided.-- Jeremy (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look - I think several points are established (eg by the Independent article) and others are not. I would favour the article being pruned to reflect this. (The main author seems to be editing from an i.p. at the au University at which Mark Gasser lectures.) -- roundhouse0 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Independent article is mostly about the music played at a particular concert and, other than mentioning that he is the performer, barely mentions Mark Gasser. The other reviews are much the same. The university web page provides basic biographical information, but should be treated as a primary source as such pages are usually written by the person that they are about. I am unconvinced that Mark Gasser has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per Wikipedia:Notability). —Jeremy (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. Not primarily an educator, but there is a significant part of the article devoted to his pedagogy. —David Eppstein 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep afd is not an tool to mark for improvement. it is for deletions. your argument is that it needs citation, so mark it with citation requireds and if they don't improve it in 6 months, then afd it. --Buridan 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article not to mark it for improvement but because I (and others) have previously marked it for improvement but to no avail. I therefore decided to seek out reliable sources myself and I have been unable to find them. Because of this I think that this article fails the key test of verifiability and is therefore a candidate for deletion. —Jeremy (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went through the links provided by the author and sorted them. This may be a borderline case of notability, since Gasser appears to be notable in a professional music circle. I suggest stubbifying the article, "pruning" it as Roundhouse0 put it. —AldeBaer 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably the main author - I will leave it up to you guys with what you want to do with it. However he is certainly well known within the profession and is one of very few people to have performed the Stevenson Passacaglia on DSCH this is mentioned in the new Stevenson biography "Ronald Stevenson - A Symposium" by Martin Anderson which was just released under Toccata Press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbyfred (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please feel free to prune this down if needed - this may be the best option. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbyfred (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The link to Carnegie Hall verifies he's notable. Joke - A tourist visiting New York City asks a passerby, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" The New Yorker responds, "Practice, practice, practice!" Bearian 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
great joke! I have now added proper references and hope that we can take this off the items for deletion list. I have removed a lot of the sections which were not needed and added more citation. When can we take it off the list if you all agree to this as the way forward? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.77.2.131 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2007 (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.