Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bradley-Fulgoni

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. Although the article has an unusually large number of sources, the consensus appears to be that they do not establish notability. The samples I looked at confirm this. Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bradley-Fulgoni

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

Almost zero information exists on this individual, with what little information I can piece together coming from concert bios. {{Refimprove}} tag has been on the page since 2009 with little to no indication that anyone has done anything to it. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unsourced individual biography, which fails WP:N and WP:GNG for starters. Quis separabit? 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac and Quis separabit?, I infer that the reason for the proposed deletion of this page is the lack of sources: I will immediately provide all the necessary sources for every statement in the page (sites of Cambridge University Press Journals, Christine Talbot Cooper International Artists, Delphian Records, Worcester Concert Club, Sinfonia of Leeds, etc.) in order to prove that any information relative to Peter Bradley-Fulgoni adheres to the criteria indicated by Wikipedia. Grateful in advance for your cooperation.

BWV846 —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators, I'll be grateful for your feedback on the status of the updated page in relation with the Wikipedia requirements, i.e. with respect to the recent proposal of deletion.

BWV846 —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BWV846 the references you have added seem to mostly be from places where you've given concerts, and (if I'm not mistaken) often those biographies are supplied by the subject of the bio. These, and articles you have written, constitute PRIMARY sources, and while they are not forbidden, they do not demonstrate notability. The remainder of the sources seem to be one-sentence mentions of you, which are fine for verification of facts but do little for notability. The page still requires multiple independent reliable sources that talk about you in detail.

As a side note, please end all of your comments with ~~~~, which will sign your messages and more easily allow people to know left the comment. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, thanks a lot for the information you've given: I've never given concerts (and it's nice of you to think I could), but I suppose your thoughtfulness was addressed to me.

I'm not a recitalist but I know a thing or two about the music world, and I can positively say that the only artists' biographies which are not directly provided -or do not totally rely on those directly provided- by the artists themselves (or their agents) are those on the Grove (and only in the case of deceased people): if you resorted to the parameter "bio/data uninfluenced by artists/agents" to delete artists' pages, the vast majority of those relative to living artists would be rather short-lived (apart from saying that some Wikipedia page quotes even the personal site of the artist in focus or articles where the artist speaks about him/herself).

And anyway: articles/reviews on artists' performances are out of place because inevitably celebratory, personal research doesn't comply with Wikipedia rules, music sites are unreliable in that we can sense that they draw from material (inevitably) supplied by artists; so, what's the way out? where can I get information to write about an artist I am interested in?

Besides, any 'gradus ad Parnassum' is made of single steps, therefore I don't see why having been only briefly mentioned on a source can make the quotation of this source less authoritative as regards the fact is being referred to (which is what Wikipedia is interested in, having it not an exegetic/critical aim... or has it?). Not to mention -re. the visibility factor- that Cambridge University Press and BBC (which I hope can be regarded as most reliable institutions) have repeatedly divulged thoughts and performances of Peter Bradley-Fulgoni without sparing space or time, and, when I listen to a concert on BBC3 or read an essay on a Cambridge Uni publication, I don't manage to think that the performer/author in question isn't benefiting by the most dazzling visibility an artist or an intellectual can be blessed with, and by a certification of quality intrinsic to the highest standards of efficiency -and consistently strict criteria of selection- which distinguish these institutions on an international level.

Therefore:

if we agree on the fact that being published by Cambridge Uni Press or recording for BBC, and giving recitals in Wigmore Hall, in Salle Cortot, in Richter's Memorial Apartment (a veritable shrine for pianists) is a garland of achievements which are synonym with prestige, please make your decision accordingly.

If instead you say that all the aforementioned achievements are of no interest because reported by unreliable sources (not third-party ones), I think a slight aporia is on the horizon:

in fact, you surely noticed that I used the Cambridge Uni Press/Cambridge Journals site to give evidence of PBF's essays (which are not about PBF, incidentally), and quoted the comments/captions by Cambridge Uni Press in the page (not the articles themselves by PBF) to give further evidence of some artistic achievements;

so, I'm perplexed by realising that, if it's common practice to consider artists objectively reliable when their work gets recognition by institutions such as Cambridge Uni or BBC, according to your suggestion, there are artists whose recognition on the part of such noteworthy institutions makes the institutions themselves unreliable ones (turning them into a primary party): how can this be possible? and, if it is, what are the criteria to tell the difference between the two categories of artists?

Grateful for your reply.

BWV846 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- The article now has adequate sources, but his recordings are not for a major label. The giveaway seems to be near the end, where it indicates that he earns his living as a school teacher, but doing some concerts, rather than as a fulltime professional performer. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are good for verifiability, but not notability. Can not find enough on the search engines to see where he meets either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 28 September 2015 (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.