Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul S. Farmer

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. T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S Farmer[edit]

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

As the lead says a "a music teacher and city councillor" heavily edited by the subject. But is not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:Politician and WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable as an author: 5 books by major publisher's, including 3 by Oxford University Press! (Probably the other aspects of the career should be shortenerd somewhat, I too have doubt that they would make him notable otherwise. But the books are clearly sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]

Delete as per nomination:

There appears to be nothing in GNews, books (oddly), or scholar for the subject. Of the three Ox. U. books (can't find the other two) I can find no serious, or any, reviews or mentions re WP:AUTHOR. Of the refs, no mention of him in 1; no proof that the Telegraph mentions him (3); no mention of him in hansard (4) or inline cite YouTube (5). 6 & 7 are not proper links and 8 is 404 dead. He resigned from a local town council (9); turned-up for an archery publicity shot (10); comments on his job (11) and the theft of a council laptop (12), and on local tax levels (13). He is listed as a councillor (14); comments on polling cards in his ward (15); and links to a promotional pdf (16). His town council votes are mentioned (17) and he resigns as councillor (18). He comments on the pedestrianisation of a town street (19) and is shown in a list of council mugshots (20). As a member of the Cattle Market Working Committee he comments on demonstrators (21), pub closing times (22) and smoking bans (23)(24), and presents his council ward election results (25). So fails WP:Politician and WP:GNG.

Remove the waffle and the article boils down to this unverified claim: Paul S Farmer is an author who wrote A Handbook of Composers and Their Music, Music in the Comprehensive School, and Pop Workbook. There are not even any cites that these books were written by this Paul Farmer; and links possible are only to sell sites as far as I can see.

Unfortunately if the inconsequential non-peer-reviewed publications save the article, the entire less than consequential non-notable and other uncited stuff will gallop back in on its saddle. Acabashi (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard does report the reference to him, identifiably, although as the head teacher of Dick Sheppard rather than specifically naming him[1]. Student/teacher unrest in London schools (including Dick Sheppard) and the incident in question, following the (xdxexaxtxhx - sorry, got it wrong, as people did at the time) wounding and paralysis of Cherry Groce that led to the Brixton riots (tangential update - Mrs Groce died just over a week ago[2]), are a significant aspect of the socio-political history of the Thatcher era in the UK. The article doesn't adequately communicate the significance of the incident or the subject's involvement but that can be remedied.Opbeith (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the headlined information about being (possibly or among) the first to create a UK school public examination in pop music, with the source which independently verified this. This was the primary claim for the article's inclusion. This summary removal has not been explained above or even described. Much work has gone into trying to satisfy former criticism, but sometimes true claims cannot be independently verified becaus of the lapse of time, e.g. I have the cutting from the Telegraph but it is not possible for me to cite the source after nearly 30 years. 2 June 2011 (PSF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that someone who summarily removed this "primary claim for the article's inclusion" was the article's creator (above comment) on May 15th, with no mention in the edit summary - I happen to agree with User:Paul Stephen Farmer's implied assertion of the non-notability of the claim that the subject "may" have been the first to create a certain school examination. Acabashi (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~keep I didn't have any trouble finding him in google books (maybe you were searching with the "S", Acabashi?). I've verified all Oxford publications as well as the series of instructional booklets spanning almost a decade. All ISBNs are provided now. Although I do not have access to the sources, it seems that his books have been surveyed--at least three of them are discussed in the snippet-only Popular Music Since 1955: a critical guide to the literature (pp. 77, 99 and 133). There may be more that don't show up in snippet. I'm inclined to agree with DGG, although I'd agree more strongly if more significant critical coverage were turned up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources tip me over the edge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG and Moonriddengirl: his publications provide sufficient notability, edp. with the mentions in the literature guide MRG found. LadyofShalott 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As DGG points out, obviously notable as an author - published by OUP, Prentice Hall, Hodder and Longman, plus Music in the Comprehensive School was republished in a second edition by OUP. http://www.bookfinder.com/author/paul-farmer/ is a commercial site but the idea that a commercial bookseller can't be trusted not to deceive site visitors with unreliable ISBNs and publishers' names seems a little far-fetched. Also the idea that the inaccessibility of pre-internet book reviews should be considered as suggestive of the non-notability of any author not reviewed in the internet era is a bit extreme. OK, the article's overdetailed and the author has perhaps got the emphasis wrong in places, but Wikipedia doesn't demand that every sentence confirms notability. Time might be better spent polishing the article than being gratuitously sarcastic about the subject. Opbeith (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look finds Music in theComprehensive School is on Leeds University School of Education reading list for the Music Secondary PGCE (Postgrad Certificate of Education) course[3] (though they've got the publisher as CUP instead of OUP), also on the City of Nottingham Music Development Service reading list[4] - not quality reviews, but lasting user endorsement. Opbeith (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that he published under OUP does not necessarily make him a notable author. There are professors at universities who have published under OUP, notwithstanding publication dozens of peer-reviewed articles, and not even they meet WP:Notability guidelines to have their own article. I can hardly believe that this article is still wasting server space. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that says something pretty damning about WP:Notability guidelines Opbeith (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One does not even have to seek recourse to the notability guidelines to establish this article's notability! Biographies of persons should only be admissible to the extent that it would be in the interest of a general reader or if the person in question has gained acclaim (e.g. an international award, extensive coverage in media, a biography written by somebody else). Notability guidelines are only that: guidelines. Yet after observing the way you have all used your discretion, I think that the guidelines would better serve Wikipedia if they were codified and amended appropriately so that we do not see the creation of obscure articles such as these. I welcome further debate. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity is a pretty subjective notion. I'm not clear on what basis access to useful information needs to be rationed other than to limit abuse.Opbeith (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I have retrieved my 'memorabilia' boxes of papers from the loft, and will over the next few days be adding further infomation and sources where appropriate.Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that Music in the Comprehensive School was reprinted by OUP in a second slightly enlarged edition in 1984 and is also featured in: Stephanie Pitts (2000). Reasons to teach music: establishing a place in the contemporary curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 17, pp 32-42 and Perceptions of Crystallising and Paralysing Factors in the Development of Student Teachers of Music in Scotland @ http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wae006/petestollery.com/text/crystpar.html#farm79 as well as McPhee, A. and Stollery, P. and McMillan, R. (2005) The Wow Factor? A Comparative Study of the Development of Student Music Teachers' Talents in Scotland and Australia. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(1):105-118. @ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/942/1/Aus_revised.pdf also in a PhD thesis Peer Assisted Learning in the Acquisition of Musical Composition Skills by Hilda Mugglestone @ http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2471/1/hmthesis.pdf, and I could go on. But it is not just as an author that this article is justified, but because Paul Farmer was one of the first to develop the use of pop in the secondary curriculum and definitely created the first public examination in pop music (when I said 'maybe' beefore I only did so to try to sound neutral, but facts are facts. Farmer was also one of the youngest comprehensive school heads in the country, and of a school which had exceptional turbulance which gained it national notoriety. I have have many more newspaper cuttings but do not want to clog the article further. Your advice on this and anything else is is very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Paul, to me notability seems clear on the basis of authorship of the books and, now that you've provided the references, the exam pioneering but the article still reads like a CV. It's important to consider what achievements are substantial and of wider interest and what are not, otherwise the usefulness of the Wikipedia article is reduced and the significance of real achievements is undermined.Opbeith (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Opbeith. Would it be worth expanding what you think deserves notability and contracting what doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, the starting point is really to familiarise yourself with general principles. In spite of my own reservations about a number of points it covers, Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a starting point. If you're editing an article, it's not a bad idea to identify a couple of articles about similar subjects and see how they've emerged from the editing process. And the most important thing is to take an objective view. For obvious reasons you have access to relevant information and references. But you don't seem to have used enough discrimination in filtering out information that is unlikely to be useful to a general reader. For example, being elected to three terms as a local councillor is not a unique distinction nor in itself particularly significant. (Uxnxrxexfxexrxexnxcxexdx xmxexnxtxixoxnx xoxfx xwxoxrxkx xixnx xaxnx xuxnxixdxexnxtxixfxixexdx xsxcxhxoxoxlx xixsx xuxnxlxixkxexlxyx xtxox xbxex xuxsxexfxuxlx xtxox xaxnxyxoxnxex xwxhxox'xsx xuxnxaxbxlxex xtxox xoxbxtxaxixnx xfxuxrxtxhxexrx xixnxfxoxrxmxaxtxixoxnx xexlxsxexwxhxexrxex. - deleted, my mistake) As a purely personal view, I think that occasional items of incidental information bring colour and interest to an article, making it useful to the browser as well as the researcher. But the content of this article is swamped with incidental detail distracting from the material that's of wider interest. The modernisation of the music curriculum is a subject of considerable importance as far as contemporary social developments are concerned (I'm referring to the UK), and important individual contributions to that process are worth knowing about - but their significance is made harder to appreciate by all the irrelevant detail. Opbeith (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantially revised this article and await comments. PSF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I think the article Discussion Page is probably the best place to continue talking about the details of the article while leaving discussion of the substantive concerns relating to the proposed deletion here, so I'll carry on there. Opbeith (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2011 (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.