Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Truelove


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Truelove

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Of course his works seem to be before the Internet but I found some here, here and here so I'm not entirely sure if this has better notability and improvement; it's worth noting the subject briefly edited this article in 2009 shortly after this articls started in February 2007. Pinging for comment. SwisterTwister  talk  00:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, what do you wish to know? I created the article in February 2007, as noted. It currently cites five sources. I believe that Mr Truelove did make some changes to the article. What exactly is the issue?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if he's notable and if there's better sourcing. If he is notable and there are better sources, very well. SwisterTwister   talk  00:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Suppose that he is notable, but there are no better sources? (This same criticism could be leveled at any article at all.) Or do you have specific issues with one or all of the sources cited?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC) To rephrase my question: Which of the five cited sources fails to meet the minimum standards for reliability? It can always be objected that better sources would be preferable, but this is a counsel of perfection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerome Kohl, there are problems with the sources. The source BY him is not a third-party source. The Sunoloco source is just a few sentences - not a good contribution toward notability. With the dissertation (which is not generally considered a published source), since he isn't named in the title as one of the foci of the study, it isn't clear how much there might be about him in that source. The McCoy work isn't cited anywhere in the text of the article, so it isn't clear what it contributes. The awards that are mentioned (which could count toward notability) are not sourced. His list of compositions also is not sourced. (I found a source here, but it is so close to this article that I suspect it may have been copied from WP.)   I would say that the article lacks basic wp:verifiability. Given that he is a musician, a few reviews of his work would go a long way toward bolstering this article. LaMona (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding with your detailed criticisms of the sources. First of all, let me point out that dissertations are generally regarded as published sources ("printing" is not the same thing as "publishing"), but that is not really the question here: it is whether dissertations are WP:Reliable sources. That article states, in the section "Scholarship": "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." This particular dissertation is not, even in part, a primary source. Consulting the source itself which, like most American dissertations, is publicly available through ProQuest, is the best way of determining what portion of it is dedicated to Mr Truelove, and the answer is, approximately one-fifth. It is not conventional to include an annotation to such a fact in a bibliography, but it could be done in this case, if it pleases you. I have read this dissertation myself; would it help if I looked for a link to it (even if it had to be a "subscription only" link to ProQuest)? Second, indeed you are correct about reviews. Two of the items you mention (McCoy and Nordin) are in fact reviews. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Ingvar Nordin's review amounts "just a few sentences". Perhaps you only looked at the introduction. Eight different CD recordings are individually reviewed (the links are in the sidebar). Purely as an example, I quote the tenth paragraph from the first of those eight reviews:
 * This music has all the strength and inner significance of Beethoven’s late string quartets as well as the persistence of some of the post-asylum works by Giacinto Scelsi, and the emotional web is complicated, never easily sorted out – but flowing, all the time flowing, in a relentless natural force, like the sleep-walking fulfillment of a categorical imperative.
 * The sound of the instruments has real body, real anatomy, almost enabling you to smell the wood lacquer, sense the surfaces of the rounded wooden vessels of resonant vibrancy.
 * “Allelama Chakratour” is nothing short of wondrous; a tonal materialization of the finest moments of a composer’s most honest creativity. There is love in this music, in a pure, soaring, suspended form; without any weighing attachments of human selfishness…
 * There are perhaps seventy-five paragraphs all told. Hardly what can be called "just a few sentences".
 * I shall look for a source for those awards. They cannot have fallen out of the sky.
 * As to the source by the subject, it cannot of course be counted as a third-party source. However, at the risk of once again quoting the guideline on reliable sources:
 * Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * This source is used solely to support the circumstances of his dissertation research. Do you find a problem with the appropriateness of this use? If so, perhaps it can be addressed with an suitable edit to that sentence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerome Kohl, thanks for pointing out the reviews on the Sonoloco site. However, looking at the background, that is an individual's site (Ingvar Loco Nordin). Therefore, not RS. LaMona (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you commented as so a consensus can be accomplished. SwisterTwister   talk  06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE. Publishing a doctoral thesis (and a DMA is, as the article says, an advanced practice degree, normally for performance or composition, not a research degree such as a PHhD. The thesis requirement on such degrees is normally less substantial. ) There's no evidence of major performances or major recordings or major first place awards, or critical comments on the compositions, just a few local or blog reviews.   DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (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.