Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Connolly


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Connolly

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This biography appears to be of a non-notable individual. Only one online reference given that does nothing to establish notability, and the other reference is not online, and certainly doesn't satisfy the multiple non-trivial references part of WP:BIO. With all due respect to the man, I'm not sure he's any more notable than my grandfather is. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Asserts notability. There's no requirement that a reference be available on-line; for a composer of hymns who was most active in the '50s, and in Australia, seems reasonable that most references that would establish notability would be offline. Capmango 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding me. The problem is that there's only one reference period. As it is, it completely fails WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, not kidding. A composer of hymns that are sung throughout a country is notable.  A composer who was active in the 1950s, even one whose hymns are still sung today, would be hard pressed to come up with sources to attest to that notability.  But that is a WP:V problem, not a WP:NN problem.  But verifiablity is concerned with information that is challenged or likely to be challenged.  Unless we have reason to believe he's just pretending to have written hymns, then we should just mark the artivle with verify and be done with it. Capmango 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are more than one references. There are the two footnotes, the formal reference, and 3 reasonably reliable web sites. DGG 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in Australia, needs some additionnal references though.--JForget 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite apart from his religious works, writing the Playschool theme would make him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment not sure what that link has to do with this article - it's about Carpentaria by Alexis Wright.Garrie 03:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Play-school theme... Close, WP:SNOW. This needs verification from reliable sources, not deletion.Garrie 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have changed the style of the citations. There are now four items in the Notes section, some of which belong in References - my solution would be to have one "Notes and references" section others may have a different idea.Garrie 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted earlier, I feel that:
 * The article should be marked for verifiable content, as opposed to deletion.
 * Composing the Play-school theme is notable; this alone is not enough but it adds notability.
 * "verifiablity is concerned with information that is challenged or likely to be challenged" To date, noone has challenged the content on this page. Until an editor/reader feels that Richard Connolly has not contributed to Australian hymody and challenges the claims in the article, I feel the article should be kept. -- a JC freak   y A k  10:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For editors looking for verifiable sources, these references might help.  a JC freak   y A k  11:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily notable, given the sources provided. No particuarly controversial claims are made, so while I think the article could always use more sources, I don't think there are any real problems with this article in its current state.  Lankiveil 04:02, 24 June 2007 (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.