Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurita Murphy Mead

Maurita Murphy Mead

Maurita Murphy Mead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No material secondary sources on the subject of this article. News hits are limited to the most local variety of coverage. Full professors are often, but not automatically, notable. Notable professors would have considerably more coverage.

If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide. Note that this Wikipedia article as been tagged for lacking sources for nearly four months. Bongomatic 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. All I could come up with to verify notability from the one valid assertion in the article were news releases from the university where she teaches and Wikipedia mirrors. No prejudice against recreation should she later gain some notoriety outside academia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs third party sources establishing notability. A lot of professors at major universities like Iowa have had solid careers, but not necessarily notable ones. --Bobak (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Iowa is a major music school, and when they make someone a full professor on the basis of their teaching of performance, I defer to their judgement. On what basis do people here think they can tell better? Why would a newspaper or magazine article or two saying so prove it any the more? Their decision is an independent source for notability.DGG (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The University of Iowa judged Prof. Mead's quality as a clarinetist and a teacher of clarinet. By contrast, Wikipedia editors are supposed to judge the quality of the encyclopedia article that can potentially be written about Prof. Mead. The latter judgment can only be made by finding and evaluating independent sources about her. The university's decision to hire or promote her is not a source at all, nor is it an "independent source for notability." It's evidence of well-accomplishment. But well-accomplishment is not notability.

    The University of Iowa hires the best music faculty it can find. Wikipedia editors write neutral encyclopedia articles. Let's keep the two functions separate. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Exactly wrong. The quality of articles is not the issue here at AfD. Quality is dealt with by editing. Notability is the issue here,which is a peculiar Wikipedia concept, perhaps best defined as "importance within the field", and therefore with a career suitable for an encyclopedia article. There are many reasons for notability, and accomplishment is the most usual and the most important of them. DGG (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "Importance" is by most people's definition a relative concept. There is no indication that this individual has risen to a level of importance in the field, given a reasonable definition of "the field" (obviously, if you include anyone who tooted a claranet in a band, she has risen to a lofty level indeed). Perhaps DGG's view is that every partner at a top tier law firm or accountancy, or managing director at an investment bank, or brand manager at a consumer products company is notable, but I don't think there's anything like a consensus on that proposition. Bongomatic 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Could you please explain how an assessment of notability is any less subjective than an assessment of "importance within the field"?
        • Can I ask whether you did any research on Mead, prior to concluding she was not notable? Geo Swan (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "The quality of articles is not the issue here at AfD. Quality is dealt with by editing."--But without independent sources, it will not be possible to write a quality (i.e. verifiable and neutral) Wikipedia article. Whether such an article is possible to write is precisely the issue at AFD.

        The idea of "notability" serves only as a proxy for this fundamental question, hence Wikipedia's definition of notability as the existence of significant, independent coverage. Your conception of notability as "importance within the field" is interesting but foreign to Wikipedia's actual deletion policy and to Wikipedia:Notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously, I'm going to go this way as I wrote the article and have studied with her. She's previously served as the secretary of the International Clarinet Association, the principal clarinetist of the Des Moines Symphony, performed widely as a chamber musician, lectured at major symposiums and universities, and has been reviewed in notable music magazines. She is also one of the leading Americans in her main style of music, the choro. What else would notability require. I'll get you the sources if you need them. Clarinet Hawk (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide."--Bongomatic

    "Needs third party sources establishing notability."--Bobak

    "The judgment can only be made by finding and evaluating independent sources about her."--Me

    Yes, sources would be helpful. :)

    (Right now, the article seems to be sourced only to her university webpage, which presents problems of neutrality.) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Question -- Our nominator asks: "If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide." -- excuse me, but doesn't the nominator have a responsibility to do a web search, prior to making a nomination? The last time I looked our opinions here are supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic. If the topic merits coverage I believe we are supposed to discount correctable weaknesses in the current article. It seems to me that a responsible nominator, who respects the time of other discussions participants, has to do their own search on the topic so they can independently arrive at a meaningful opinion as to whether the topic merits coverage. I have never heard of Professor Mead, or of choro music, prior to reading this nomination. My web searches did turn up references. I added a few to the article. I am not placing a keep right away, because I am not familiar with the specific notability criteria for musicians. Since Professor Mead has multiple CDs, and has high-profile performances, wouldn't that make her notable solely as a musician? The other artists participating in the Daniel Pearl World Musid Days included Alison Krause and Robert Plant, who won a Grammy two days ago. Their notability doesn't rub off on Mead. But, if the organizers are going to get some famous artists would they really also add an obscure Professor of music? Isn't it more likely that any Professor of music they chose would be picked from among the most notable Professors of Music? Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I did do a news and web search to attempt to establish notability per the general notability guideline. I found no significant coverage other than in very local sources (the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City Gazette), whose editorial selection of local events and personalities cannot be (and by consensus, generally are not) considered to be "independent" of the subject. By referencing "importance in the field", as possibly demonstrated by awards, deanships, etc., I was suggesting indicia that despite the inability to find sources containing significant coverage would demonstrate the likelihood of there being such sources now or in the future. I.e., the "importance in the field" criterion would lead to a more not less inclusive standard.

The notability guidelines for musicians and recordings are listed at WP:MUSIC. I was unable to find coverage of Mead's performances or recordings that satisfy those guidelines, either. Bongomatic 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• One of those criteria states: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Coverage of Mead concur that she is one of the leading representatives of the choro style in the USA.
• Were you planning to address my question as to why you think "importance in the field" is too subjective, but you do not regard "notability" as too subjective?

I don't think of the notability guidelines as too subjective. While there may be cases on the margin, "significant coverage" isn't too subjective to generate wide consensus. Bongomatic 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am unaware of any consensus that coverage in local papers was not considered independent of the subject. If this consensus is well established you should have no problem finding a place where this consensus was established. Would you mind directing our attention to where that consensus was established? Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen numerous recitals of this view in AfD discussions. It is also implied in footnote 5 of WP:N. Look a the editorial selection process in a local paper versus a national one.. Bongomatic 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Response to Geo Swan regarding the nominator's responsibility to do a web search: No, that's not the nominator's responsibility. That's mainly the article creator's responsibility. The nominator can only do so much. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• The sources provided by Geo Swan do not constitute significant, independent coverage. The interview Prof. Mead gave about someone else to a student writing a thesis is trivial coverage about Prof. Mead, and not independent. The concert notice is trivial. The press release from her employer is not independent. And the resume-like "biography" of dubious provenance on the World Music Days website is unreliable. These sources allow the construction of a makeshift resume for Prof. Mead, but that's what her university homepage is for, not Wikipedia. And, no, it is not true that "Coverage of Mead concur that she is one of the leading representatives of the choro style in the USA." After searches by Bongo, Geo, me, and others, there seems to be no independent coverage of Mead--let alone verification that she is a "leading representative." 160.39.213.152 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)