Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles J. Suck

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Suck[edit]

No signs of notability. This search yielded some unreliable sources, 38 of which are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Alexius08 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WWW is not the only place to look for documentation of an 18th century composer.
Reliable sources for this person include Evelyn Rothwell's notes for this composer's Trio for oboe in C major, when she edited it in the 1960s; the entry for "Suck, Charles J." in The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians, which is on page 162 in the 1954 edition; and Bruce Haynes' Music for oboe, 1650-1800: a bibliography‎, which lists Suck's other trios (2 for oboe, 2 for flute, and 2 for violin, in total) in Suck's entry on page 313. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entry in Grove's is sufficient for notability . We are a superset of other selective encyclopedias, and they are certainly a RS. I accept their authority for what's worth covering, though we normally do less detail. DGG (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its entry in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Note also that when dealing with topics like these, it's a good idea to seek the advice of relevant WikiProjects such as Composers or Classical music. Many of their members have access to specialist literature as well as expertise on the subject. Google hits are not the way to go. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established. EZStrider (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has now been significantly improved and referenced. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.