Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Turner (2nd nomination)


 * 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) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bruno Turner
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deletion requested per WP:BIODELETE in (I haven't verified the identity of the correspondent, but have no reason to doubt that he's the article subject). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: undoing my closure—, has additional sources for discussion, per my talk page
 * Delete clearly not notable enough to justify an article over the subject's objections to having one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Delete agree that he is not well enough known to override the subject's request, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Striking my delete vote in view of further information from Chubbles and In ictu oculi, am now neutral, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  Devoke water   (talk)  11:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  23:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Other than a long career, I don't see that he's listed in any musicology journals, none are used for sources. Seems relatively minor. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sadly, I keep getting here too late for the party, but the !voters are missing things here. He already has an article in The New Grove, which is the most authoritative English-language encyclopedia of art music, and he is frequently covered in the scholarly journal Early Music, both for his recordings as a choral conductor and for his scholarship on historical performance practice. JSTOR has hundreds of listings for his name within musicology journals. He even got his own festschrift, entitled Pure Gold: Golden Age Sacred Music in the Iberian World - A Homage to Bruno Turner. Ed. by Tess Knighton and Bernadette Nelson, reviewed here in Music and Letters and here in Fontes Artis Musicae. Within the field of early music, he is well-known, and the fact that he is already covered in a major music encyclopedia indicates he should be covered in this encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep     WP:BIODELETE does not apply when someone has a bio article in a major relevant reference work, i.e. here The New Grove. when you voted was the New Grove bio article not listed in the sources? As New Grove article shows Turner is the major English musicologist in the field of Spanish renaissance music. As well as being a conductor. Try the "Bruno Turner is" seach in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I click GNews and the first thing that comes up is Aug 2017 Bruno Turner as one of "More than 50 leading figures from the music world, including John Rutter and Judith Weir, protest against a ruling at St Sepulchre-without-Newgate" Reverse this concert ban at our musicians’ church. With all due respect to Mr Turner, whose musicology I greatly respect, you cannot be a public figure in the New Grove and in public petitions of leading figures from the music world one minute and be objecting to a Wikipedia biography the next. The fact that the biography is completely uncontroversial and includes career information also available in dozens of CD booklets and magazine articles really makes deletion impossible. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that source wasn't referenced in the version that was nominated for deletion,, and indeed was only added today. I will contact the article subject as a courtesy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * An update from OTRS: the article subject writes that (paraphrased) he's never sought publicity, but if it pleases Wikipedia editors and readers with an interest in him, he would now be happy for the article to be kept given that it's been significantly improved. This discussion is heading towards a keep now anyway, but with this update in mind, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination, which was made on behalf of the article subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep moved to keep in view of the above and additional reliable sourcing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - inclusion in a major music encyclopedia is clear evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.