Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Moss

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 without objections to recreation There are a lot of claims to notability, but not a single reliable source. Looking at the sources provided by the nominator show that this guy did write a popular theme song, but none of the links showed independent notability. None of them were substantial about the subject... well there were a few, but they appear to be wiki-mirrors. If somebody wants to come back and recreate this with viable reliable sources, I would fully support recreation. But without real sources, and those I saw didn't support the claims herein (and letters/interviews with the author are not reliable sources) I have to delete.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Moss

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This musical composer/performer/director does not seem to meet WP:Notability or WP:NMUSIC. The article's claims to significance center around 3 works. I've included relevent searches here:

Grange Hill [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Stinkfoot, a Comic Opera [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
The Rocky Horror Show [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

No reliable sources found in any of these searches. Sources already in the article are dubious at best. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject appears to be notable in several ways, some unsourced and unreferenced, but one of the external links actually has some screenshots from a BBC interview with Moss. I'd say a keeper at this point. Appears to require some pretty heavy handed editing and cleanup of references, but should not be deleted unless no improvements are made in a reasonable timeframe. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Notability requires verifiable evidence. The external link is not on a reliable source, and we cannot use the existence of an interview to prove notability, which is requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". An interview would not be independent, and thus not usable for establishing notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalFascist (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the claims can be verified by good sources. Peter Moss is also the name of a notable labor lawyer. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this person is actually notable, it seems to me a better idea to find good citations rather than just hit the delete button. It after a suitable time the citations are not forthcoming, then reconsider. As a newbie interested in musicals, especially British musicals, I was wondering why wiki itself (as noted by the person who wants to delete this article) aren't credibilty. If wiki hopes to maintain high standards, then surely a subject found in many other wiki articles than one devoted solely to that subject, would be credible. And if not, why not? Hasn't wikipedia reached that distinction? Musicalady (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above, WP:NRVE, claiming notability does not establish it. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of notability claimed, though I feel I detect some COI. Definitely in need of referencing, but only if that fails should deletion result. Peridon (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above, WP:NRVE, claiming notability does not establish it. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rest of my post. Peridon (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the post - "Plenty of notability claimed" - this does not satisfy the WP:N guideline, because The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. There is no such evidence in this case, merely claims. "only if [referencing] fails should deletion result" - Referencing has failed, as no one has come forward to reference this article, which has existed for more than 3 years. WP:NTEMP: Notability is also not predictable. ...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future. As it does not currently meet the criteria, and you have offered no sources that would establish notability, the article is eligible for deletion according to our guidlines. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:23, 8 June 2010 (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.