Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bertman

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[David Bertman]]=

:{{la|David Bertman}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|David Bertman}})

Fails WP:PROF. E.g., no evidence of significant impact on the field or national awards. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

::Strong keep. I have to disagree. This does not fail WP:PROF. As per the Criteria section, "If an academic/professor meets […] the following condition[..], as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. […] The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC."

::In the latter guideline, it is noted that "A musician […] may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: […] is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." It also states that a musician may be notable if he or she "[h]as won or placed in a major music competition."

::It is verifiable that Bertman was a director of two independently notable ensembles (The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps as well as the Spirit of Houston). It is also verifiable that while Bertman was with the Cavaliers, they won multiple Drum Corps International World Class Championships. This classifies as a "major music competition".

::It should also be noted that Bertman is an author of a series of books by a major publisher, the Hal Leonard Corporation.

::It is for all of this, that I cannot advocate the deletion of this article. Brian Reading (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Comment - The book series is not mentioned in the article. Also, in The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps, David Bertman is not mentioned at all. Instead it says that Jeff Fiedler retired as director in 2008, after 17 years, and that Adolph DeGrauwe is current director. So it appears that David Bertman was not the director when the major award was won. You'd need a reliable source for that. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

::::Comment If the book series is not mentioned, then it should be. However, this is not a valid reason for deletion. Bertman was not the main director of the Drum and Bugle Corps, he was the Brass caption head, which is a major direction position. Regardless, the language in the guideline simply states that if the musician was simply a member of the ensembles, this is adequate enough. These are things that can be easily verifiable. I applaud your effort to clean up non-notable subject articles from Wikipedia, but I find it wise to familiarize myself with the subject of an article prior to requesting deletion. Brian Reading (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::Comment Thanks for your reply. I enthusiastically agree with your point about what is wise. If you have some sourced information that would help improve this article, I encourage you to edit the article. That would be a valuable contribution. With that said, I am somewhat doubtful that simply being a member of two marching bands is enough to be notable, even though WP:MUSIC could be read that way. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Nomo's points above are well-taken. I'm quite confident, in particular, that the distinction he draws concerning what constitutes an "ensemble" is spot on. Remember, guidelines like WP:MUSIC essentially attempt to predict notability, and it seems to stretch the boundaries of common sense that all members of a notable marching band -- this is literally thousands of people over the course of a given marching band's history -- are notable for this particular association in the same way that WP:MUSIC effectively "predicts" notability for a member of a rock band or string quartet, which has a much more limited and less given to fluctuation lineup. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I agree with Nomoskedasticity and Ginsengbomb about WP:MUSIC. To me, the only viable way to argue that the article should be saved would be to say that Bertman's books satisfy some criteria in WP:PROF. For example, Criteria 4 could be satisfied if several of Bertman's books "are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." I'm voting for deletion but would reconsider if someone comes up with a viable argument using WP:PROF. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment: For what it's worth, it appears that the books are intended for high school instruction rather than higher education. http://www.halleonard.com/search/search.do?seriesfeature=EMBAND Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::*Comment: Thanks for looking that up. Writing those books is a good accomplishment by Bertman, but I don't think that it qualifies him to have an article in Wikipedia. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment: Please be more specific. What coverage did you find? Which criteria of WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR do you think Bertman meets and why? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, or Redirect to Spirit of Houston, where he is already mentioned. An associate professor, a university band director - these do not amount to notability, and little coverage is found at Google News. However I did find [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F0E186463FD495C&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM this article] from the Dallas Morning News, which sounds like it might amount to significant coverage; can anybody read it behind the paywall? --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment: Well, it is only 108 words long. Photo captions? Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.