Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Freed


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Richard Freed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject doesn't appear to have been covered in significant depth in reliable, independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - as currently written and with the poor sourcing, I'd delete it. However, there is a claim he won a Grammy for criticism. If verified, he might be notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book can be borrowed online for two weeks at Internet Archive… Genium. 01:24, Sep 26, 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has his own entry in the Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Genium. 23:59, Sep 25, 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – Grammy nominated and winner; subject in Baker's and in Grove Music Online . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michael, and why suggest to delete any 90-year-old with merits?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article as a result of a request we received at the Volunteer Response Team, from someone claiming to be the article subject (I haven't verified this, but have no reason to disbelieve it). In a follow-up e-mail, the person wrote "I appreciate Wiki's energetic research, but in this case what it all came down to--what is shown on your site--is simply inaccurate and strikes me as unrelated to the stated subject. If you should decide simply to delete it, that would strike me as an acceptable solution". Apologies for only mentioning this now, but I needed to get the person's permission to do so first. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is written badly in parts and needs work. However, we can't act on an anonymous request for deletion, and in this case, even a courtesy deletion based on a request by the verified subject, should that be offered, would stumble at the hurdle of other reputable sources having covered the person. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The standard advice from OTRS when article subjects request deletion is for them to start an AfD, specifying that they are the article subject, that they regard themself as a non-notable, private person, and that they want the article to be deleted. I take the point that Freed now seems notable though. I think we need to focus on making sure that the content of the article is accurate if it is kept, though. I can always ask for confirmation of this by e-mail. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets the criteria at WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2019 (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.