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The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Antoniou

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP since creation in Jan 2008, challenged since Apr 2008 with no substantial improvement. Jubilee♫clipman 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Antoniou appears on WP:MET, indicating he has an entry in at least one major music encyclopedia. If he's good enough for music encyclopedias, he's good enough for this encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the complete absence of any references whatsoever. There is nothing to back-up the claims made in the article, nothing is verifiable and there is no indication of notability. What Chubbles (talk · contribs) says is all well and good, but, "This person has an entry in at least one major music encyclopedia," is not a valid source in itself. Something specific would need to be cited. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC states that a composer with a biography of standard length in an encyclopedia qualifies for inclusion. Current lack of sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion; indeed, it would be irresponsible to delete so well-known a composer (take a look around!) simply for lack of references. Chubbles (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. It would be irresponsible to watch it get deleted when you know there are sources and where to find them and yet fail to add them. WP is about verifiability, not truth. I am at present working on the entire List of 21st-century classical composers to check if they really do link to composers (rather than botanists or breeds of dog) and to check the sourcing. I AfDed and PRODed a few early on without checking, for which I apologise. I will come back, when I get a chance, to try and source these but I suggest others make a start if they truly think the articles are worth saving. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be astonished if no one commenting in this discussion even bothered to run a Google Books search and allowed the article to be deleted. Hopefully the closing admin will not take their words for it. Verifiability is not at issue here. Chubbles (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't: it has been in this AfD for 18 hours and no one has bothered editing it at all. So verifiability is an issue here. Who is to say we don't get the blindest Admin in Wikipedia closing this discussion? (no offence to whomever does close it, of course, but I am sure they will understand my meaning!) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken issue with AfD-as-route-to-article-improvement; it's not what it's for, and shouldn't be used that way. I think this case is clear to anyone who has done a good-faith search, including the resources I've already pointed out. At this point, I'm going to sit back and be a disgruntled knuckle-rapper; if the article is deleted that says more about Wikipedia than it says about Antoniou. Chubbles (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final thought then I'm off to bed for the night: In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. from WP:MUSIC. As I understand this, the article must both establish notability and cite a source verifying it. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources challenged for nearly two years and still no improvement. --Deskford (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the light of references added by Kleinzach. --Deskford (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some refs. There is some stuff out there, though you have to dig for it. Anyway I think the Gardner Read review establishes it for me. --Klein zach 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Klein! That might turn this AfD around now. AfD isn't just about shall-we-shan't-we-delete, it's about raising the profile of dying articles, IMO, though that is not why I nom'ed this article as I explained above. Anyway, good work and I hope the article can be salvaged now. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor of Composition at a major university would be expected to be notable , and there are refs to show it. Lack of sources & no improvement are not deletion reasons; you need to be able to say that you have looked for them and failed. To nom when there are sources to be found is a waste of one's own, and many other people's time. It is not actually prohibited yet, but it's irresponsible. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I don't think that's a fair comment. Lots of professors are not notable, and references in this case were not easy to find. There are many neglected articles like this one, and Jubileeclipman is doing his best to process them. --Klein zach 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Withdraw AfD and close - work with sources supplied by Kleinzach and seek out others to improve article. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:17, 12 January 2010 (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.