Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cunard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The references seem to be only topical external links and not references concerning the subject himself. Lack of improvement and a possible single purpose account are also factors in weighing consensus. IronGargoyle 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Cunard

David Cunard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A person of no sourced notability. Worked for a record company; his mother was mentioned in a government report. The article has a bunch of references, the majority of which don't mention this person. A few trivial mentions of his name are made in passing ("record so-and-so produced by David".) Nothing substantial notability-wise, all information about the person is unsourced. Weregerbil 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral for now. There is a claim of notability in that the article says he was nominated for a Grammy Award as a producer. However, the sources I have been able to find don't list the producers of the albums nominated in his category (just the titles and composers), so I have not been able to verify the claim. In addition, the article rambles all over the place. I don't see how his mother's experiences in being committed to placed involuntarily in a nursing home could be relevant enough to be included in this article. Depending on whether and how this article is improved, I may reconsider later. --Metropolitan90 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I now recommend a delete because no attempt has been made to improve the article yet. --Metropolitan90 07:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are definitely some claims to notability in there; this one's going to be more difficult than your average A7. Still, I think that more likely than not the final result will be "delete".-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A worthy and active member of the middle class, but not encyclopedia material. Hawkestone 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, I think the article is way too long and should be edited down. But I think he makes the mark in notability. Callelinea 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Apparently those who have read this article are totally ignorant of the British National Health Service, the largest employer in Europe. Despite the Wikipedia assertion that there are three other “national systems” in the United Kingdom (which is one sovereign nation) the NHS is funded by general taxation of the entire country. The financial problems of the Health Service are a frequent topic in British media. The "Government Report" dismissed by Weregerbil above indicates an unfamiliarity with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and effect of its work which is quasi-judicial. The report in question was the most important ever made concerning the long-term care of the elderly in the United Kingdom and has resulted most recently in a complete overhaul of the manner in which patients are granted funding. That alone is worthy of inclusion since the subject of the article influenced government policy which affects some sixty million people, all of whom will be old one day. The background to the case is included to indicate how the matter came about - and incidentally, the article never states that his mother was "committed to a nursing home". The manner in which she and others are placed in accommodation and then required to pay was a major factor; perhaps it would be wise for critics to familiarise themselves with the problems of the National Health Service before being so dismissive. Referring to “a bunch of references” does not, I submit, indicate professional editorial acumen.

Biographical information requires that the background and education of a subject be included; “worked for a record company” indicates unfamiliarity with the Recording Industry. In the 1960s, EMI Records was then the largest record company in the world (Capitol Records is one of its subsidiaries) and Mr Gooch replaced the older George Martin when he departed. He had as a colleague Norman Newell (q.v.) who, apart from producing many well known artists and translating Italian lyrics, appears not to have helped his fellow man in any way. Producing the first album to donate royalties to an Aids-related (or in American use, AIDS-related) in itself would be cause for inclusion. Concerning the Nomination for a Grammy Award, a check with the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for the awards period 1985 will confirm this: David Gooch - Very Warm For May. Unfortunately they do not list nominees on their web site since that are always five in each category. Although the article does not mention it, the Nomination was a directly responsible for a change in the Academy’s rules which in the following year (1986) forbade unreleased historical recordings from being included in the category. It so happened that until 1985 no other British record producer had been nominated in this “field” as the Academy calls it.

In my estimation, the article does not “ramble all over the place” but is clearly divided into chronological sections culminating in the circumstances and results of his campaigning for the rights of the elderly in the UK. Wikipedia is read by the British researchers and if it is to be considered definitive, fame or celebrity should not be an indicator of biographical worth; if he had appeared on Big Brother, there would not be a discussion! 1810 GMT 10 July 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Shuster (talk • contribs)

  • The article says that the subject's mother was "placed involuntarily in an EMI (Elderly Mentally Ill) Nursing Home", which is why I said she was committed to a nursing home. --Metropolitan90 08:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In the UK one can only be "committed" to a psychiatric hospital under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983; it is commonly called "sectioning", which means that a 'section' of the Act has been invoked; a patient cannot be 'committed to a nursing home' and in this particular case, no "sectioning" was involved. In British law there is now no division between a "nursing home" and one which offers "residential care"; they are all known legally as "care homes". What does happen (as it did then) is that the Social Services department of Local Authorities (similar to those of US counties) can (and do) transfer patients to care homes for which the patient is then (unlawfully)required to pay. The Report made to Parliament by the Health Service Ombudsman upheld the formal Complaints made about this, and the result was that most recently the National Health Service substantially amended the procedures. There is no equivalent in the United States because there is no universal health coverage. WLS 0837 GMT
    • Noted. I have changed the wording of my original recommendation above accordingly. --Metropolitan90 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The events leading up to the change in British Government policy are interesting and probably notable, perhaps these merit an article themselves or being recorded as part of a larger article. However, much of David Cunard's life otherwise appears to have been unremarkable and unless notability is brought out and established, I would go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the issues raised by a (probable) spa don't assert notability. Giggy UCP 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep - seems to have a lot of references. However, article seems a little long-winded. Guroadrunner 13:23, 17 July 2007 (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.