Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Davidson (composer)

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davidson (composer)

Completely non notable. The article gives no indication of this person's significance to society and has no appropriate sources. It does not look as if sources can be found; that however is not the issue for a sourced article about a "nobody" still should be deleted. Yardleyman (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The references section hints that he may be profiled in the New Grove. Can anyone confirm this? — Gwalla | Talk 05:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned in the entry on Brisbane as one of seven "younger composers" based in the city: "Younger composers include Gerard Brophy, Stephen Cronin, Robert Davidson, Kent Farbach, Stephen Leek, Peter Rankine and Nigel Sabin." --Canley (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the references and external links show he's notable in his field. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe the body of the article must allege that the subject is notable in his field, not just the sources. If there is no credibly sourced allegation of notability within the article itself, the article fails WP:N. Therefore, Delete. Yardleyman (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper response to a situation where the references show notability but this is not reflected in the article is to add the assertions of notability to the article and cite them to the references. BTW, putting "comment" in bold usually means that you're not saying whether you think it should be kept or deleted. — Gwalla | Talk 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:N doesn't pertain to assertions of notability–see the section at WP:FAILN, which states: Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Radiant chains (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as per the points raised previously. Dan arndt (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article does not really establish notability and the New Grove mention is trivial, but a search of the ABC website shows that Davidson and Topology's music is played very frequently on ABC Classic FM. --Canley (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously the article needs work and expansion, especially to describe his compositions and career more fully. But that's not grounds for deletion. It's grounds for improving the article and tracking down further sources some of which were (bizarrely) moved to the talk page. In addition to the references in the article, his work is discussed in L. Sitsky, R. Martin 2005, Australian Piano Music of the Twentieth Century. New York: Praeger/Greenwood.[1]. His compositions are not only very frequently played on ABC Classic FM,[2] he was the subject of a whole programme on that station.[3] See also this page in The City of Empty Rooms by Tom Shapcott. See [4] for a list of his compositions and who commissioned them and his entry[5], in International Who's who in Music and Musicians, Routledge, 2000. Also this article about about him and his ensemble in Fast Forward Weekly. His work also appears on Anthology of Australian music on disc (sound recording). 3rd series. CSM:22-CSM:30. Several of his works appear the soundtrack of the film The Burial, which the won the grand prize at the 2009 London Independent Film Festival. [6]. He and his group were also the main subjects of a dissertation: J. Burgess 2004, High Culture As Subculture: Brisbane’s Contemporary Chamber Music Scene Brisbane: University of Queensland (Abstract: [...] The dissertation addresses this question through the application of subculture theory to Brisbane's contemporary chamber music scene, drawing on a detailed case study of the contemporary chamber ensemble Topology and its audiences.) Also, before proposing an article like this for AfD without even trying to find sources or improve the text, it would at least have been helpful to seek input from WikiProject Contemporary music and WikiProject Composers both of whom have banners on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Contemporary music and WikiProject Composers - Voceditenore (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Voceditenore, Canley's radio find and the fact that he's mentioned in New Grove (trivial mention or not, of countless (probably) young Australian composers they chose to mention him). --Jashiin (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (SNOW) per Voceditenore and Special:Contributions/Yardleyman — the nominator keeps editing articles he nominated for deletion. Not notifying the bannering projects displays the same neglect of etiquette. Some counselling seems in order. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You should see what the article looked like when it was first nominated. I had to scroll down just to get to the content, past a full page of tags that were added by Yardleyman. Radiant chains (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (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.