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.
American composer. The article was deleted as non-notable in the previous AfD.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 11 decided to endorse that closure but also to resubmit the article to AfD to assess improvements made towards the end of the previous discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete Of the 8 sources, only one appears to be independent, the book, though I can't see the full extent to which it discusses Byron, one single source is not enough. I suppose Dusted mag was independent but it looks like a small time old fan type blog with no real readership and thus not enough meaningful coverage.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually striking my comment about the independent book - it looks like a copy of the Wikipedia article. So...no actual coverage. Also the book is published as a draft, so I'm not sure how this could be considered a reliable source.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Allmusic's independent, and fine for reffing his discography, but the bio there is all of twenty words long. It's not significant coverage all by itself. —
Cryptic04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The ebook version may be marked draft, but the corresponding print edition is in
hundreds of libraries. Also, the only revision I found with any resemblance to Byron's entry in it is the most recent, where it's clearly marked as a quotation from the book. What revision is it a copy of? —
Cryptic04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I said "it looks like" not that it was. My points all still stand though, there is no in depth coverage and certainly no independent in depth coverage.
Praxidicae (
talk)
16:24, 23 May 2020 (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.
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.
American composer. The article was deleted as non-notable in the previous AfD.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 11 decided to endorse that closure but also to resubmit the article to AfD to assess improvements made towards the end of the previous discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete Of the 8 sources, only one appears to be independent, the book, though I can't see the full extent to which it discusses Byron, one single source is not enough. I suppose Dusted mag was independent but it looks like a small time old fan type blog with no real readership and thus not enough meaningful coverage.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually striking my comment about the independent book - it looks like a copy of the Wikipedia article. So...no actual coverage. Also the book is published as a draft, so I'm not sure how this could be considered a reliable source.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Allmusic's independent, and fine for reffing his discography, but the bio there is all of twenty words long. It's not significant coverage all by itself. —
Cryptic04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The ebook version may be marked draft, but the corresponding print edition is in
hundreds of libraries. Also, the only revision I found with any resemblance to Byron's entry in it is the most recent, where it's clearly marked as a quotation from the book. What revision is it a copy of? —
Cryptic04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I said "it looks like" not that it was. My points all still stand though, there is no in depth coverage and certainly no independent in depth coverage.
Praxidicae (
talk)
16:24, 23 May 2020 (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.