Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Davison (composer) (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 no consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Davison (composer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A previous article on this gentleman was deleted in 2016. The voters in that AfD found several minor mentions of the musician in various sources but very little significant coverage of his works. This new version of the article is based entirely on an unreliable promotional site, and the situation with reliable and independent sources has not improved since the first AfD. Despite a prolific career behind the scenes, he continues to appear only in typical industry listings and promotional sites. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, do not confuse with the actor of the same name. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete — Fails WP:N and doesn't include any sources with the exception of Ultravillage, which seems like a WP:USERGEN site. As stated by the site's about page, Nearly all the information on this site comes from primary sources such as interviews with artists or those who knew them, as well as label owners, music writers, and other music biz types, failing WP:SECONDARY. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep For me, this is a borderline keep. The large number of film and TV scores gets it over the line even though I admit it is low on significant coverage. @Angryjoe1111: This does not fail WP:SECONDARY because our (Wikipedia's) use of Ultravillage, (not a WP:USERGEN site) is one step removed from the primary sources. BTW, I was the one who accepted this article at AFC based on my comments above. As I said, it was borderline but I lean towards being WP:inclusionist so here we are. Jschnur (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - References and external links added to article, May 8, 2020. Pmusillier (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Paul Musillier

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator - If any admin sees this, it has been four weeks and I don't really see the need to keep this going. Other editors have added sources, and I personally don't think they help too much, but I already made my case. This AfD is clearly not going anywhere surprising. Chalk it up to "no consensus" and we can move on. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.