Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela and Jennifer Chun

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. J04n(talk page) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angela and Jennifer Chun[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced spamvert by subjects' press agent. Fails WP:BAND and GNG standards. Orange Mike | Talk 05:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability: the Guardian ref looked hopeful but turns out to be the single phrase "music for two violins, agilely played by Angela and Jennifer Chun". Not serious coverage. PamD 12:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that it's a marginal case. But they have 3 albums from a respected publisher of classical music. They have been covered by the New York Times1 2 and the Guardian -- not in great detail, as noted above, but they at least merit the attention of a handful of major papers. Their releases have been reviewed by The Strad magazine12, Gramophone1, and the American Record Guide (not available online)The liner notes from their Bartok CD says that they have won several major competitions, but I've yet to be able to verify that. I'd say it at least meets this criterion:
- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). - Kenirwin/(talk) 16:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kenirwin. Their albums are released by Harmonia Mundi which seems to meet the criteria cited above. And, two reviews in the NYTimes, plus the other stuff cited above, should be enough to pass WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced by Kenirwin and RoySmith's arguments that notability standards are met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NYT articles convinced me. This is what non-trivial coverage from an independent, reliable source looks like. wikitigresito (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article and added more citations. Passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO (they are not a band!) notability criteria per coverage in reliable sources and recordings released on a significant indie label (harmonia mundi). Zingarese (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2018 (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.