Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. J. Albert (clarinet maker)

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. --Core desat 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Albert (clarinet maker)[edit]

No evidence of notability. Does not meet notability guidelines for Biographies or Music Mdhandley 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some google searching leads me to believe this person is notable. He created the Albert system clarinet, which is still used by many musicians. This link shows that his instruments are included in a historic collection of musical instruments. This antique Albert clarinet is going for $300 on eBay. There doesn't appear to be much biographical information about him online, but I bet he's in music history textbooks. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are huge numbers of Albert system clarinets in use out there, and a lot more than one at any given time on eBay. Google for "albert system" or "simple system" which is synonymous. Given the notability of the Albert system, I'd say its creator also must be considered notable. --Rsholmes 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fang Aili's research above and suggest a move to ~~Eugène J. Albert~~ Eugène Albert (per Mak).--Isotope23 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but move to Eugène Albert per Grove and to avoid confusion with his son, also a clarinet maker, E.J. Albert (born Joseph-Eugène Albert 1860–1931), who did not create the Albert system, but made clarinets which were used for longer. Mak (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. I've expanded it a bit from Grove, a very good source of music info. Mak (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; ask knowledgeable editors to create appropriate redirects. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons thus far stated. It is clear that Eugène Albert is quite suitable for encyclopedic inclusion. One of hazards of the wikipedian way is the temptation, particularly when one is tired and nevertheless pushing oneself to accomplish more, to summarily reject the unfamiliar as an unwelcome demand on one's temporarily diminishing resilience. Better to resist that unkind impulse. Athaenara talk 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the article has undergone substantial expansion. Mak (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2006 (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.