Talk:Taubman Institute

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was '.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is of incredible significance. The Taubman Institute is one of the leading piano institutes in the world. It is headed by on of the most significant piano pedagogues "Dorothy Taubman." There is no reason why this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomYes (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 December 2010

The article, as it stands, makes no claim of it's notability. As the article stands, it tells me that a lady set up an institute and that the institute self-published some DVDs. That is not worthy of inclusion. It doesn't matter if Dorothy Taubman is the most famous, well publicised pianist in the world, because notability cannot be inherited. An article needs to meet our notability criteria to be worthy of inclusion. In this case it needs to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). All claims of notability need to be supported for verifiable third-party sources. So, as it stands, the article should go, per WP:CSD#A7. If you know more things that aren't included in the article, then they need to be added. To recap: If you can show that this organisation meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), using verifiable third-party sources then the article is worthy of inclusion. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move to Dorothy Taubman[edit]

Following is what I wrote at the just-closed AfD:

I find ample evidence that Dorothy Taubman is notable (more than 100 GNews hits[1], and at least a few interesting discussions found at GBooks as well[2][3]) but my sense is that the Institute is mostly notable because of her and doesn't really need its own page. It appears that an attempted article about her was deleted as a copyvio of her biography at the Institute's website. In my opinion, the most productive remedy would be to move and rename this article to Dorothy Taubman (so as to save the work of identifying the references already presented) and rewrite it (using independent sources like the cited LA Times articles and others) to focus on the individual, with appropriate incidental mention of the Institute.

Since the AfD has now closed as "no consensus", I'm repeating the proposal here to solicit opinions about a proposed move and refocusing of this article on the individual, Dorothy Taubman, rather than the institute. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, most defiantly. The article doesn't deserve to stand on its own merits; but it does seem a shame to lose all of the information. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]