Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Ludlow


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Ludlow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant Promotion for Non notable businessman/musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the individual. A lot with him speaking about things but not others writing about him. Closest is a local indiscriminate puff piece, look what this local boy is doing type things. 30 under 30 lists are not significant. Awards are not major, HMMAs are not credible. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio and Articles for deletion/Matthew Carl Earl. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Having scanned the topic via google search, I believe this passes WP:GNG. This is without prejudice to the suspected COI issue. Another volunteer editor without COI tag can further tone down the page to suit WP:NPOV. Having a look at the remaining two related pages as given above.Germcrow (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. Guessing and seems and believing. Not a good way of going about things. How does it pass GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Draftify A look at Google reveals another "Richard Ludlow" of Ebor Academy Trust who is indeed notable. For this "Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio, he is still not there. A case of WP:TOOSOON. I only found these two 3rd party sources 1 and 2.
 * The rest are interviews from Audio production industry. They include 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
 * Indeed, these sources are not enough. But the current page has issues of refbomb. It requires clean up if it must be kept. Otherwise, I recommend incubating in the draftspace for more reworking. Outright delete is not the best for me. I stated this in other two related pages as well.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the combination of industry sources and general media sources enough? François Robere (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Source 1, nerdreactor, quote from Ludlow only, not coverage about him. 2, berklee, PR from berklee about a lecture at berklee, nothing independent there. The rest as stated are interviews with him or his partner, nothing independent there. Note also the repeated use of the same promo photo of Ludlow as used here, pure spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify or Delete First, I don't agree with a Draftify or Keep !vote - the article either passes or fails. The reason for Draftifying is because the article shows promise but does not yet meet the criteria for Keeping.  HighKing++ 11:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is what happens when people throw shit at the wall and sees what sticks. None of the sources give notability or are independent yet there was a hell of a lot of original research that went into this. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft delete. Their portfolio is noteworthy, and coverage by industry sources, which is typically PR-ish, suggests they're somewhat notable within their industry. However, all of the sources refer to projects that are from 2018 onwards - indeed, their most notable projects (H1Z1, Blade Runner, PUBG) are from last year - suggesting WP:TOOSOON. Another problem is that big productions often involve multiple studios working in tandem on different aspects of the production (eg. character design and character animation), meaning just by the credits listed here we can't discern whether he was the sound producer, or a sound producer, which has implications for WP:NOTABILITY. Unless it can be shown that he was in a key position in each of these notable projects, then we should "soft" delete as "too soon", otherwise "weak keep". In either case the credit list should be trimmed to only include major projects. As for WP:COI and WP:SPS - these issues should be handled separately. François Robere (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: would there be any value in merging this article and Matthew Carl Earl into Hexany Audio? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping the verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG nominated for notable awards and featured in Forbes. Work is represented in mainstream productions.  Lubbad85   (☎) 22:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What notable awards? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The copy contained content not relevant to the subject's notability. Have done a clean-up and removed some articles that were not relevant at all to make it WP:NPV compliant. The subject has notable references like Forbes and has accomplishments recognized by Forbes 30 under 30 which helps meet WP:GNG for sure. Have trimmed 'Filmography' section to relevant projects only. The film table has positions which I don't understand. Other community editors can contribute to that and improve it. Splice999 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK so it's cleaner but you haven't actually said how they are notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There are significant sources per WP:GNG, here are some that meet that criteria       . This shows that there are a few independent, reliable, significant, and secondary that seem to meet a minimum threshold for notability (prevoiusly cited). In this particular case WP:COMPOSER apply as well with the numerous credits (and for which purpose for production credits they can be checked via game credits, press mentions, and other verifiable sources.) There simply isn't a glaring, obvious lack of coverage in the sub-genre of "game music" also, and then there are pathways to notability because of the repeated, independent coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which their music product is, quite clearly, as shown by the citations. The page should be kept so it can be improved (itself a different issue entirely; for example, a source column is often used for audio credits) or added for improvement through WikiProject Music, but it does meet the criteria of notability.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Throwing more shit sources against the wall. No new good sources here. You make a vague wave at WP:COMPOSER but don't actually say how he satisfies it. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, there are multiple sources that mention him. Sources like that. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not impressed. No in-depth coverage. Mentions in passing. Few interviews, not all of them about him. Nominated for a few minor awards. Nothing suggest he is encyclopedic (notable). Just someone with an average (maybe a bit better) career in the video game industry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems like there is still some disagreement about the quality of the sources mentioned here

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I think the main subject is notable, but the Article really need to revise, and find independent reliable sources.Forest90 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet another vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hexany Audio. Honestly, I can't see how Mr. Ludlow is notable outside of the company he founded, and the few good sources about him also talk about his company. Richard3120 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I definitely feel the subject is notable after achievements like Forbes 30 under 30. As far as the page is concerned, it looks WP:NPV compliant and maintains a neutral tonality. If this is not notable, then I fail to understand how pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolai_Belokosov and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natus_Ponnie are existing on Wikipedia. Quite a few back links which demonstrates he was part of notable projects. I also see almost every information backed with a citation. I did see some of the citations not helping establish this guys notability, but he has got recognition at Forbes and other platforms. Citations like https://www.berklee.edu/people/hexany-audio should be removed as it is not detailed enough. Overall, looks notable. Page trimming may help further neutralise the tone. Brenthaven (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another newly created account chiming in here. "Achievements" like 30 under 30 do not make people notable and it lacks any depth of coverage about Ludlow. On Belokosov and Ponnie see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a closer examination of the currently known sources which establish notability per WP:GNG:


 * What is about some paid promo pieces on Wikipedia that attracts so many dishonest keep !votes. Undeclared Paid Voting? Let's look at the above. Uses a cherry picked quote from a random editor and falsely represents it as policy. That quote is not policy, it is not even an essay, it's just one persons opinion which is not in step with general consensus. Above also demonstrates dishonesty regarding what is a reliable source and what is independent. Let's look at one. ProSoundEffects. See their about. "Pro Sound Effects® (PSE) develops highly curated sound effects libraries for sound artists, editors, designers, audio engineers, media companies, schools and nonprofits." It's a business selling things, not a reliable source. Let's also look at their client list, on that same page. Amongst those clients is "Hexany Audio" so clearly not "unaffiliated with page subject, Richard Ludlow." duffbeerforme (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree, the sources clearly prove this passes the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet another vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that vague? Look up at where the sources are listed and information why they are valid.  Someone even made a nice box chart to organize it all.  You can also click on them, and most links work without having to sign up or anything.   D r e a m Focus  23:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources? Which sources? Can't mean the one by him because it's by him. Can't mean Berklee and ProSoundEffects as they are affiliated so not independent. Can't mean anything based of that fraudulent table because no one honest would say that table was worth anything. So which sources then and why. Given the amount of discussion given to individual sources just saying "The sources" is a vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: what nobody has demonstrated to me so far is how Mr. Ludlow is independently notable from the company that he founded – all the sources that purport to show notability talk about his work with Hexany Audio, which is why I think his article should be merged there. Richard3120 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 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.