Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chater

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Chater[edit]

Autobiography written by editor with possible conflict of interest. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability as the notability of this person or his works are not established by the claims in the article or the references provided. =Axlq 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI and notability --Wadeperson (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. COI is not grounds for deletion, but lack of notability is. This said, because this person is a prolific article writer, and much of his work is on the Web, googling his name to establish his notability is next to impossible. His work could be used to adequately establish other people's notability, but not his own. In the absence of adequate references within the article, I have to remain on the delete side of the fence for the time being. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the leading world experts on Luca Marenzio, and one of the most knowledgable on the 16th century Italian madrigal, now that Alfred Einstein is long gone. For those of you with access to the New Grove, use the advanced search feature and look for his name in bibliographies; this will quickly give you a list of his publications. (I'll put them here if it helps.) He should be gently reminded of WP:COI and WP:RS. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a) nominator cites COI — that is no reason for deletion; b) notability is evident per Antandrus — author should be prompted to provide RS. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per Antandrus. Matt (Talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep It is not all that clear to me that a person in the humanities who has published no books and only a few articles is notable. The publication of his thesis by UMI press does not count as a book--the publication of a book by an academic publisher based on the thesis would. He has no regular academic position, and no significant editorship. I think the notability is more as a composer, but from the information given I am unable to judge.DGG (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tried Antandrus's suggestion and found that publications by "J Chater" are cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves as well as one in The Oxford Companion to Music, which suggests he is a significant expert in his specialised area. Conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion where notability exists. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (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.