Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke D. Moore


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Luke D. Moore
Delete as NN bio/vanity/autobiography. The article makes no substantial assertion of notability with the exception of an unsourced receipt of a collegiate award. The article was created by Tuesday 1pm Series, which has a strong correlation to a section of the article which states, "In his final year, he arranged the Tuesday 1pm concert series..." (emphasis added by me). The article has been tagged for speedy twice previously, with the tag being removed both times by a different user, Trio Sarabanda, whose only edits outside this article seem to be adding Luke D. Moore to various lists (List of 21st century classical composers and Postminimalism. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I am the user who tried to add the first speedy deletion tag to this article as soon as it was written. I believe that Tuesday 1pm Series and Trio Sarabanda are the same person and are socket puppets for Luke D. Moore. I think the article should be deleted as it is a vanity page. --IslaySolomon 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

-Guys- is this your job? How cool! Anyway, a few questions from the (admittedly carbon-based) composer himself: -what distinguishes between notable and undeserving of credit? -I make a potentially false assumption that none of you have produced a musical or literary work, but if this is true, what makes you qualified to assess the validity of entries such as this? -Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia, so on that principle would it not be beneficial to all to be as comprehensive as possible? Would anything other than that effectively be censorship and where is the line drawn? -How can the concise nature of the article be expanded to become more notable? NB. Tuesday 1pm Series and Trio Sarabanda are my successor in the role of Montford Scholar and an acclaimed violinist who will be performing the Violin I part of 'Moments' when it premieres later this year. In addition to this, Glass, Reich et al are not considered contemporaries- they were writing music when I was still in diapers! Thanks in advance, I find this all very interesting! Luke
 * Keep above my notability threshold. snug 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No offense, but everything is above snug's notability threshold, even if absolutely nothing in an article is verified and, say, "Luke D. Moore" gets one total Google hit. -- Kicking222 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's worth pointing out that the single google hit in question is actually a completely unconnected member of the US Air Force. I'm no expert on classical music but I doubt anyone who was born in 1982 and who graduated from Keele University less than two years ago is deserving of a place on the List of 21st century classical composers and can consider Philip Glass and Hans Zimmer his contemporaries. --IslaySolomon 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The great majority of proposed deletions do not receive keep votes from me, so empirical data seems to contradict Kicking222. I think the list is OK, and someone who wants a more discriminating list should assemble one and propose it.  I think this article would be greatly improved by references, to establish it as verified (it does look verifiable to me). snug 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The great majority of articles don't get keep votes from you, but have you ever voted to delete something? Ever? I'm sorry- I'm not trying to pick a fight or prove a WP:POINT, and I'm sure you're a completely fine human being. If you choose to vote to keep everything, that's your decision, and I have no problem with you making that decision. But the fact that you (literally?) never vote delete, and the fact that you rarely state why you vote keep aside from "It's above my notability threshold" don't really give a lot of weight to your arguments for keeping articles. -- Kicking222 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I just went through snug's user contribution history, and my assumption was correct; he literally has never voted "delete". -- Kicking222 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't vote to keep everything; as I noted, most articles receive no comment from me. I certainly will vote delete when I expend the effort in time and research to support it.  I think a delete vote should not be cavalier, and it concerns me that most delete votes are themselves poorly sourced and reasoned.  A keep vote is a vote to preserve the information so its status can eventually be resolved carefully. snug 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Without any sources I can find no evidence of notability for this individual. DrunkenSmurf 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and a complete failure of WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Totally non-notable
 * Delete, despite the fact that the subject passes User:Snugspout's "is a carbon-based lifeform" notability threshold". --Calton | Talk 04:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Luke, No...I'm pretty sure that this is not a job for any of the editors here. The point of whether or not any of the editors here have ever published musical or literary work is irrelevant.  The qualification to make the decision is based on Wikipedia policies, including WP:BIO and What Wikipedia is Not. I think you'll find most of the answers to your questions within those policies. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & discussion. --  Wikipedical 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The contrast with composers like Jerry Goldsmith (in the list at the bottom of the article) is especially telling. Agateller 05:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep =Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. E.Schroeder, Munchen.
 * Comment The article is not up for speedy deletion, this is the discussion regarding whether or not it meets requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Speedy deletions would have no such discussion.  Failing notability standards does qualify the article for this process. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, come back again when you're better known to the public. NawlinWiki 17:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable in the relatively limited context of modern British composers. TruthbringerToronto 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Note that the supposed "composer himself" admits that the article is constructed by his friends. Moreover, he does not try to assert his notability in any way, shape or form, prefering to dismiss Wikipedia editors as people who know nothing about how hard is work is. Can anyone spell vanity? Pascal.Tesson 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Pascal.Tesson- do you have any ideas as to the extent of the limited context of contemporary UK composers? NawlinWiki's point is semi-valid though notability can not always be defined by how many google search entries a name returns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trio Sarabanda (talk • contribs)
 * A look at the contributions of or  do not seem to indicate a concern for the "limited context of contemporary UK composers" but rather a strong concern for Luke D. Moore. Add on top of that the previous claim made that these two users are acquaintances of Luke D. Moore and you have a clear case of vanity edits. If you want to prove your point, why not provide third-party references establishing the importance of this composer? Do you consider yourself as a neutral observer of the importance of Luke D. Moore as a composer? Pascal.Tesson 12:58, 27 June 2006 (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.