Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Caldwell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein 06:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violin maker who does not appear to meet inclusion requirements. Being a violin maker is not inherently notable and I can find nothing about him in independent reliable sources to indicate notability - all that there is appears be sites selling his violins. The article claims notability in two awards: one is another retailer who appears to be promoting him so not a reliable indpendent source; the other is more interesting as it is from the Violin Society of America, but is perhaps not so significant as it seems: the Certificate of Merit is awared to a great many competition submissions such that it neither seems to be notable in itself, nor has it attracted the kind of interest required to meet the WP:GNG. Furthermore, this is a WP:BLP and none of the personal details are referenced; the only verifiable part of this article is that the subject is indeed a violin maker. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being a violin maker is not all that unusual, see eg this listing. It is clear from the article that most of Mr Caldwell's experience has been in repair, and he is only beginning on an independent career. He fails GNG, and as pointed out the award is an 'also ran'. --AJHingston (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being "unusual" is not part of policy or guidelines for notability. WP:GNG See also a useful link It should also be noted that whereas most online references to Mr. Caldwell and his work are in retail advertisements, they are all secondary sources and not self-published. Furthermore, however interesting or not these advertisements may be, they are not referenced in the article and therefore, not a verifiability concern. As a matter of personal disclosure, I have contributed to the article. I have personal knowledge of Mr. Caldwell and his work. I find it an utterly perposterous and libelous argumentum ad hominem that, "he is only beginning on an independent career." In fact, Mr. Caldwell has personally built more than 80 instruments and prior to working at the Potter Violin Co., owned and opperated The Cleveland Violin Shop in Cleveland Heights, OH. Regarding RichardOSmith's concern, WP:BLP The article in question does not contain "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and therefore needs not "be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Also, this article is about an American, not a subject of the crown. So please, stop embedding links for UK search engines. On to AJHingston's allegation that a VSA certificate of merrit is an "also-ran," the 19th International VSA Competition and Exhibition had over 300 entries. 9 violins were awarded a Certificate of Merrit for Tone. competition winners To continue the horse racing analogy, it is a "show" in the biggest stakes race of the biennial. --flyingtent — flyingtent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'm afraid I disagree with almost everything you have said.
- For an essay on why not being unusual does indeed suggest lack of notability see WP:MILL which says, in summary, "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest. In other words, something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable".
- The article is poorly referenced and fails to establish notability but before nominating I tried to fix that; I was unable to do so because all that exists appears to be adverts, and they are not reliable sources which are independent of the subject. So my point about adverts was simply to state that nothing suitable for adding to the article seems to exist because adverts is all there is, and lack of references most definitely is a notability and verifiability concern. Note also that adverts are referenced in the article; Three of the five references in the article are to A Cavallo Violins and whereas the article uses these to support e.g. "invitation to include two violins at The Art of Sound 2011 Exhibition", the reference itself is quite revealing stating that "all instruments in the show will be available for purchase" - in fact, this is borderline WP:SPAM.
- I believe you misunderstand WP:V if you think it is ok that none of the personal information about the subject is referenced. It is being challenged because it cannot be substantiated. "All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" and in this case it appears that it is not.
- RichardOSmith (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest you read the following WP:GHITS and apply it. You have wasted enough of my time as well as your own. The article can be improved. Did you even care to notice how long this page has been up? Guess what, not everything can be accomplished with the click of a mouse. Not every verifiable source can be found on google. For example, I will have to physically go to New Hampshire (or hopefully the Library of Congress or the National Archives. They are closer) to find articles that ran in a local newspaper in 1998 on the subject. I will have to go to Ford's Theatre National Historic Site to copy the object book for a violin which the subject restored, a violin that Joshua Bell played at the reopening of the theatre. Strings Magazine ran an article on that in May of 2009. These things, these kinds of things, I intend to do, but they take time. Maybe once the article is more complete, you will start to see more google hits on the subject and we will all be happy.Flyingtent (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS is more about checking the quality of search results, rather than the quantity - that is, it is not something that can justify there being no usable online sources at all. It is true that some subjects really cannot be sourced from the internet, though these are principally historic and/or non-domestic ones; in this case the total absence of reliable sources is a strong indication that the subject is non-notable. See WP:BURDEN; it was and is the responsibility of the article creator to provide references. If you want to take on that responsibility then great; it should be done with the article moved into your user space and moved back into article space only when sufficiently referenced and notability is established. I really think that would be wasting your time, though, as none of the things you propose to do sounds like it will establish notability: only having local newspaper coverage is generally considered insufficient; notability is not inherited so merely having worked on a violin - however notable you show that violin to be - confers no notability in itself, there needs to be significant coverage about the restorer, not the violin. The Strings magazine article you cite is online; it is very brief and suggests you would be hard-pressed to make a case for even the violin being notable per Wikipedia inclusion requirements. Note: I will be away for a few days so will unlikely be able to contribute to this discussion again RichardOSmith (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No claim of inherited notability has been expressed or implied.Flyingtent (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS is more about checking the quality of search results, rather than the quantity - that is, it is not something that can justify there being no usable online sources at all. It is true that some subjects really cannot be sourced from the internet, though these are principally historic and/or non-domestic ones; in this case the total absence of reliable sources is a strong indication that the subject is non-notable. See WP:BURDEN; it was and is the responsibility of the article creator to provide references. If you want to take on that responsibility then great; it should be done with the article moved into your user space and moved back into article space only when sufficiently referenced and notability is established. I really think that would be wasting your time, though, as none of the things you propose to do sounds like it will establish notability: only having local newspaper coverage is generally considered insufficient; notability is not inherited so merely having worked on a violin - however notable you show that violin to be - confers no notability in itself, there needs to be significant coverage about the restorer, not the violin. The Strings magazine article you cite is online; it is very brief and suggests you would be hard-pressed to make a case for even the violin being notable per Wikipedia inclusion requirements. Note: I will be away for a few days so will unlikely be able to contribute to this discussion again RichardOSmith (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest you read the following WP:GHITS and apply it. You have wasted enough of my time as well as your own. The article can be improved. Did you even care to notice how long this page has been up? Guess what, not everything can be accomplished with the click of a mouse. Not every verifiable source can be found on google. For example, I will have to physically go to New Hampshire (or hopefully the Library of Congress or the National Archives. They are closer) to find articles that ran in a local newspaper in 1998 on the subject. I will have to go to Ford's Theatre National Historic Site to copy the object book for a violin which the subject restored, a violin that Joshua Bell played at the reopening of the theatre. Strings Magazine ran an article on that in May of 2009. These things, these kinds of things, I intend to do, but they take time. Maybe once the article is more complete, you will start to see more google hits on the subject and we will all be happy.Flyingtent (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I disagree with almost everything you have said.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a bunch of strangers reading about me and my family on their computers. Yall kindly shut up and remove me from this site already. Flyingtent? Cute. I know who you are. As for you and these other wkifags, I don't care how much notability can fit on the head of a pin. It's all completely pointless. Eric Caldwell174.152.16.89 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No credible claim of notability. Very poorly cited. I would suggest that original contributor tried again at a later date if/when better cites were available and a clearer case of notability was stated, but for the charming comment above. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSubject is insane.Flyingtent (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reason for deletion. You have also already voted "Keep" above. If you have changed your mind please strike your previous comment and come up with a better reason. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Disclosure: I am the original contributor of this topic and it is my first contribution to wikipedia. I know the subject personally and I find him very interesting. Some wikipedians may be interested in stamp collecting, or obsolete computer languages, or whatever and contribute articles on any such topics they choose. I on the other hand, was dismayed at the scant information available online about a particular artisan, and that is why I chose to make a wikipedia page about Eric. I am also an educator. I work for Fairfax County Public Schools and have been a teacher for six years. As such I have done my best to use WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, etc., but I am afraid this whole debate illustrates some failure in this regard.
- Argument: The Subject meets minimum notability requirements WP:CREATIVE 4b and 4c. Minimum requirements are just that. For another example of a living person with minimum notability, see Owen McGee WP:NFOOTBALL. As for establishing consensus, I doubt that this forum can accomplish this so long as participants give opinions and generalizations of guidelines without offering relevant details to support their views.
- Conclusion: On the whole, I am personally disappointed with the way this article has been treated in this discussion. I am disappointed with the way policies and guidelines are tossed about without citation of their precedent or prevailing application, especially as nonsequetors and when numerous citations are given in conjunction, forming circular arguments. I am disappointed by the hostile tone, blatant contradiction, advocacy, etc. even by veteran wikipedians. Regardless of the outcome for this topic, I would like to see more constructive debate in the future.Becc144 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you are disappointed. The difficulty is that Wikipedia has set itself a high bar for admission of people in most walks of life. Arguably that is not true in respect of professional sportsmen, but for those in the fine arts, skilled craftspeople, and the like there are clear criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory of the nice, the clever, and those who need encouragement and there has to be something more to render them encyclopedic. I have simply not found anything in the article or what has been written about him to show why Mr Caldwell might be the subject of an article other than that he may be famous one day, and that is not enough. There are a lot of enormously talented people; it is a priviledge to meet them but Wikipedia is not the place to announce them to the world. If it were, sadly it would be full of articles about people promoting themselves or being promoted by others and it would be devalued. --AJHingston (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi, the proof of the argument is assumed in the premise and therefore can not refute the claim WP:CREATIVE 4b and 4c. This is petitio principii lol. Is this a debate or not? I would even go so far as to say that the argument, "the subject can not be included because it does not meet inclusion requirements", is an example of hysteron proteron. Flyingtent (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go through it if you like, but don't assume that because people disagree they have not understood. Firstly, I do not think that articles by dealers describing Mr Caldwell's work and explaining why people should buy his violins qualify as the sort of independent coverage envisaged in the notability guidelines. That is not accusing the dealers of lying - if they did not think his violins worth buying I assume they would not stock them. But that goes to veritability not notability. Notability looks for evidence that he has been picked out from amongst his fellows as worth writing about in at least two independent sources which are not merely trying to sell his products. Secondly, there is the award - I don't know how many awards have been given and to how many violin makers since Mr Caldwell began making violins, but it must be a great many. Mr Caldwell got one, and it was not a top award. Again, it confirms competence, but not that he is notable amongst his fellow violin makers. Thirdly, the exhibition. There has to be an element of judgement where artists and craftsmen are involved, because for example acceptance of a single piece for permanent exhibition by a major national institution would always weigh heavier than a whole show in an obscure gallery. But Mr Caldwell has neither; two exhibits in a single temporary show of works for sale would not normally be considered sufficient. It is what artists and craftspeople typically do, and does not make them notable. You can disagree, but I really do not think that the notability criteria are met. --AJHingston (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. Sadly, I don't think I care anymore. You see, I just spent a great deal of time looking into the real policies that govern this site, those concerning how Wiki Media Foundation spends its money. Let's just say that since you are so loyal a wikist, perhaps you should apply for a job selling wikitrinkets. The pay must be great since they have only a skeleton crew of less than 100 (worldwide) whose sole purpose is to make sure the donations and free content keep coming and lawsuits are kept to a minimum. Yes, they even have a whole marketing staff deployed to maximize volunteer contributions of content. And since it's not for profit, they have to wikispend, on something, right? BTW the use of wiki-anything is, and probably shall remain, forbidden in most academic settings. It really is a wikiscam. Believe what you wikiwant. That is the wikitruth. I wish I had known this before I contributed anything. Oh, I'm sorry you can't see this, but my hand is supine with my midddle and index fingers upstretched, not at you, just in general. God save the Queen, and good night.Flyingtent (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I can't resist pointing out that certain authorities on article deletion are woefully ignorant on the topics they seek to delete. About Violin Society of America competitions: They are unique in the field of violin making in the way each instrument is judged on its own merrit, not in comparison to the field as a whole. As a result top prizes are not even awarded at every biennial in every category. (Not to name drop, but Marylin Wallin the current VSA president has tried for years and never landed a gold medal.) Also, second round judging indicates competence and there are no awards given in that round. About the Art of Sound: Here is what Strings Magazine says, "The list of previous exhibitors reads like an international Who’s Who of violin making...". link Again, thank you the clarification on your opinion. All I can add to it is that ignorance and false assumptions often lead to the wrong conclusions. But here is an entirely different sort of nonsense: "The subject does not have minimum notability because the subject does not have a permanent exhibit in a national gallery". Please, don't make me laugh. In order to preclude the subject, one must first define minimum notability with regard to the particular small niche topic. It is not enough simply to say that the subject is not a living legend. As for one-man shows of violin makers', they are not all that common. Only 2 come to mind. Antonio Stradivari had a one man show in 1987 in Cremona (if memory serves) and Giuseppe Guarneri 'del Gesu' had one in New York about 10 years later. The comparison to artists is equally ludicous. For a good example, look up Artist's shit. Violins by contemporary makers don't sell for six figures at auction. The only 20th century maker to hit that mark in retail sales is Stefano Scarampella. And yet, a can of poo sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23 2007. Do I need to continue? Well old boy, I'm tired and ready for bed, again, goodnight.Flyingtent (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go through it if you like, but don't assume that because people disagree they have not understood. Firstly, I do not think that articles by dealers describing Mr Caldwell's work and explaining why people should buy his violins qualify as the sort of independent coverage envisaged in the notability guidelines. That is not accusing the dealers of lying - if they did not think his violins worth buying I assume they would not stock them. But that goes to veritability not notability. Notability looks for evidence that he has been picked out from amongst his fellows as worth writing about in at least two independent sources which are not merely trying to sell his products. Secondly, there is the award - I don't know how many awards have been given and to how many violin makers since Mr Caldwell began making violins, but it must be a great many. Mr Caldwell got one, and it was not a top award. Again, it confirms competence, but not that he is notable amongst his fellow violin makers. Thirdly, the exhibition. There has to be an element of judgement where artists and craftsmen are involved, because for example acceptance of a single piece for permanent exhibition by a major national institution would always weigh heavier than a whole show in an obscure gallery. But Mr Caldwell has neither; two exhibits in a single temporary show of works for sale would not normally be considered sufficient. It is what artists and craftspeople typically do, and does not make them notable. You can disagree, but I really do not think that the notability criteria are met. --AJHingston (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi, the proof of the argument is assumed in the premise and therefore can not refute the claim WP:CREATIVE 4b and 4c. This is petitio principii lol. Is this a debate or not? I would even go so far as to say that the argument, "the subject can not be included because it does not meet inclusion requirements", is an example of hysteron proteron. Flyingtent (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you are disappointed. The difficulty is that Wikipedia has set itself a high bar for admission of people in most walks of life. Arguably that is not true in respect of professional sportsmen, but for those in the fine arts, skilled craftspeople, and the like there are clear criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory of the nice, the clever, and those who need encouragement and there has to be something more to render them encyclopedic. I have simply not found anything in the article or what has been written about him to show why Mr Caldwell might be the subject of an article other than that he may be famous one day, and that is not enough. There are a lot of enormously talented people; it is a priviledge to meet them but Wikipedia is not the place to announce them to the world. If it were, sadly it would be full of articles about people promoting themselves or being promoted by others and it would be devalued. --AJHingston (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! Tell them what you think! Hey AJ, I'm a tradesman not an artist. It makes no difference to me what artsts do. I'm fine thanks. I don't need help or encouragement. What do you need?~e108.127.131.84 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It doesn't seem like it meets the notability requirements to me. All he does is make violins, which is nice, but he doesn't seem notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Theking17825 20:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. I did a Google search, hoping to find news stories (other than lists of violins or performers including his name), but I was unsuccessful. As said by others, simply being a violin maker — even a good violin maker — is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:09, 3 September 2011 (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.