Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Griffiths


 * 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Herbert Griffiths

 * – ( View AfD View log )

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * comment Why, pray tell me, would the creator of an article nominate it for deletion? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of us on Wikipedia have changed our view on notability as the project itself has evolved. I certainly started articles around the mid-2000s on subjects I don't think are notable now.  RobinCarmody (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have just added a citation of his obituary in The Times. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been held to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Qualifies for a Wikipedia article via WP:GNG and lots of sourcing can also be used for WP:BASIC. That includes the obit found by Necrothesp and other sources including:
 * "The Term 'Musical' " written by Griffiths in The Musical Times
 * Herbert Griffiths brief biography via the Biographical Dictionary of the Organ
 * "Herbert Griffiths" biography from Tobias Broeker
 * His works and archives are held in the Royal College of Music
 * And that doesn't include what I think could qualify under WP:BASIC. I think with a bit of due diligence and focus, he could have a robust article built around offline sources. Missvain (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Times,and reliable book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2021 (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.