- 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. StarM 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jori Chisholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The person in question is clearly not that important in terms of professional piping not having won any of the major awards at the Argyllshire Gathering, The Northern Meeting or the Highland Society of London Competitions. The awards listed here which the subject has won are second tier awards and do not fit into the category of world class. To be considered one of the world’s best pipers a piper would have to have won a Former Winners event or either of the Highland Society of London Gold Medals. There are many competitors who have won these awards over the past few hundred years. Why is it may I ask that that someone who has never won any these major awards is being portrayed as being so important?
There are many websites you can go and research the subject. To name a few [1] [2] [3] [4]
I have purposely not provided a full test of the article as I am quite sure that upon researching the subject using the websites provided that the subject in this article is not at all very important in terms of world class competitive pipers. He may run his own piping business; in teaching which may I suggest is the main reason for the existence of this article. It is nothing more than an advertisement for his teaching business. Next we will have an average car mechanic on Wikipedia trying to increase his sales!
I will provide a more substantive test with more references and reasoned argument if necessary however at this stage I will not waste my time on an article as insignificant as this one as I think it quite obvious what this article is about and who it was written by! It is quite obvious by the level of personal detail in the article it was contributed to by the subject in the form of another username.
In short I think this article is a joke and should be deleted, and I will provide a more reasoned argument if required.
Fing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingyon 83 (talk • contribs) — Fingyon 83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This nomination was broken. Now fixed. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I would say that his awards cover WP:MUSIC pretty well, in conjunction with him being a solo performer with a notable pipe band. In relation to the above websites he does appear, firstly here and most notably here. Also, see here and here for further support of his award. There does seem to be a worrying history of the subject himself editing this article and whilst that's not encouraged I don't believe that it's impacted this too much. Perhaps it needs clean up to prevent POV creeping in, but it's not serious enough to warrant deletion; the information is largley verifiable. Finally, I'm not too impressed by the array of SPAs at work on this article, particularly the nominator of this AFD. onebravemonkey 11:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; He is definitely a notable player. If you look at the major awards he's won there's no doubt that qualifies under the WP:MUSIC criteria #9. Especially the A Marches at Oban, which is a major event, qualifying for the Former Winners status -- of which there are less than 50 pipers worldwide. There are many other notable pipers in the world that do not have Wikipedia pages and that is something we need to work on. The basis of the article created by user JPerry was a detailed profile article in Celtic Heritage Magazine -- more evidence that the subject of the article is indeed notable. page 1 and page 2 There are dozens of Wikipedia articles on much less notable pipers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gy57f37gjh59gj (talk • contribs) — Gy57f37gjh59gj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep; Notability shouldn't be defined merely by awards won. In addition, notability should be defined by substantial contributions to the art. Chisholm is the founder and proprietor of BagpipeLessons.com, which is the first and only service where pipers can download electronic lesson packages (sheet music, MP3, and a written and MP3 lesson.) For those of us around the world who live in places where there are no piping teachers, this is a godsend. Also, Chisholm has become known as an innovative piper who is breaking new ground by mixing pipes in nontraditional ways with banjos, ukuleles, pianos, etc. His new album, Bagpipe Revolution, is a good example. Those who argue that this article should be deleted should have to show evidence of non-notability with respect to these two contributions to the art. 76.105.205.85 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, you can't prove non-notability (you can't prove a negative at all). What is it with this particular article that has brought all the SPAs and socks out? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or in other words (and as per the policy on biographies of living persons): "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Notability needs to be proven, rather than the other way around. onebravemonkey 10:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (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.