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.
This prolific movie music composer is borderline IMO. He gets a couple of pages in
The Encyclopedia of Film Composers, but a lot of his work is uncredited,
[1] even at the end of his career, and all or nearly all for low-budget B movies.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as he is included in the Encyclopedia of Film Composers and the written work referenced in the article, seems to pass
WP:BASICAtlantic306 (
talk) 18:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Has a resume and is credited.
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply. Everyone on IMDb has a resume and is credited. What has he done to satisfy
WP:ARTIST?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 09:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
You are right that IMDb is not a reliable indicator of notability. Why, then, do you cite it in support of this nomination?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
To show that most of his work is uncredited throughout his career.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 21:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Just in case the point I am making is unclear, I mean that the nominator stated a clear reason for keeping, i.e. that the subject has an entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher. The point of our notability guidelines is that we follow such reliable sources rather than our personal opinions about importance.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Has a significant number of released works [1].
Star Islington (
talk) 15:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there are four keeps, much of the justification is very weak. Additional input is needed.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as the Keep votes are noticeably still questionable with there still being no convincing signs to improve this to a independently notable level, my searches and examinations have found nothing better too. Delete as a result of all of this.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with
Atlantic306's rationale: a long deceased person who gets substantial (multipage) coverage in a bona fide encyclopedia on a notable topic like film music belongs in our encyclopedia as well. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
In one book. What about GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected"?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 02:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 04:50, 22 June 2016 (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.