Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Taylor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 since the lack of reliable sources has not been adressed. --Tikiwont 10:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rowan Taylor[edit]
I suspect some if not all of the information here is either a hoax or simply plain wrong. Although I'm not questioning the existence of a Rowan Taylor, it seems that if the information contained in the article is accurate, reliable sources should be a little easier to come by that what I've found. It seems a little odd to me that the only source is a obituary from a blog. Unless someone can find sources, I recommend deletion for the reasons of disputed factuality Tx17777 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Something does in fact smell funny here, I'm just not sure what it is. One would think that the claim of "one of the most prolific composers of all time" would be backed up someplace where one could find it - but I can't, and neither can these folks on the Classic Music Guide forums. There are under 300 Google hits on his name, and many of them are in the Mormon sphere; it appears he was known in that area, but beyond that, there's not much to go on. Delete unless someone can track down some rock-solid sources to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless WP:RS can be found; we can't hang an article on a blog obit. He was real as far as I can tell and there may be something to the "most prolific" claim, but it is one made by sources of dubious independence from him. As it is, borderline WP:PROFTEST and failing general notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He existed, all right. Notability may be another issue. An OCLC search turns up five of his scores, including his 1957 MA Thesis at Brigham Young University, which was his Symphony No. 7. The other works are all more recent, and are "reproduced from manuscript" in holdings of various libraries, except for a piano piece, He Annointed the Eyes of the Blind Man, found in a published collection of sixteen short pieces, Mormoniana, (New York: Mormon Artists Group Press, distributed by Mormon Arts & Letters, 2004, ISBN 0850510112), and includes a CD recording. A Google search turns up a dozen or so musicians who list Taylor amongst their teachers.--Jerome Kohl 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thought—more of a question, really. The body of the article cites a number of "Who's Who" type books. Entries in such books can be (and often are) little more than vanity-press entries, written by the subject. However, some have higher standards than this. I don't see a specific guideline in WP:RS for this kind of book. What is the consensus on their status, and, if they are even marginally respectable, wouldn't they better be put in a reference list and be cited as reasons for keeping this article?--Jerome Kohl 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Normally such books are not used to justify notability (whereas various "dictionaries of national biography" often are). They are not in depth enough to provide more than verification of certain aspects of a person's career, and for anything controversial they should be avoided, but in general I don't think we need a hard rule against ever using them. --Dhartung | Talk 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reply As someone who is listed in a few of those "Who's Who" books, I know what I am talking about: not a source for notability at all! All info in those books is provided by the subjects themselves and, as far as I can see, not checked by the editors of Who's Who. So these are not independent sources to start with. Also, one can get into those by self-nomination, or they can get to you (by ways that I have no clue about). They mainly try to sell you their (expensive) books or (equally expensive) plaques that you can hang up in your office to brag about your inclusion. (Guess how much money I spent on this crap.... :-) --Crusio 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In all fairness, the Marquis Who's Who business model is not followed by all publications calling themselves Who's Who, in particular Who's Who (UK). But it is in the end just a listing. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and stubbify - I have found some sources online using a search engine. I'm not sure if anyone will prove he's a notable composer outside of Mormonism, but I think there might be enough reliable material out there to at least create a verifiable article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that you add a "References" section containing some of these reliable sources that you have found. (This would be the most potent argument for Keeping.) The best source my own Google search turned up was the obituary, which I duly added. As has been pointed out already, this is merely a blog (as opposed to an obituary in a newspaper or magazine), and an External Link, as well (not a "Reference" or "Source" or entry in a "Bibliography"). FWIW, I have also searched OCLC (with results described above), as well as JSTOR, Music Index, and RILM, none of which yielded so much as a single hit.--Jerome Kohl 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Claim of notability seems to rest on him being the most prolific composer ever. A wee google turns up this musicweb-internatinal.com article MusicWeb Christmas Challenge: Who was (or is) the most prolific composer of all? which notes that 1) Wikipedia's article on Georg Philipp Telemann states that the Guiness Book of World Records states that Telemann is the world's most prolific composer (here) 2) several other candidates can reasonably lay a claim to the title too, and 3) that Wikipedia also includes the same claim for Rowan Taylor, but goes on to say of the Wikipedia article:
If all the unsourced claims of dubious truth are removed then we are left with a stub, but one with no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]"This cites respected publications such as Who's Who in the World as listing him but a check of the 2004 edition didn't find an entry for him (he died in 2005). We were also sceptical about him because a search of the Pierce College website - he definitely taught there for many years - failed to find anything. In the end we resorted to searching Grove Online and found about 45 people with Taylor as part of their name - none of them were called Rowan. We do know that he wasn't a complete figment of someone's imagination, but the lack of an authoritative source made us unable to accept the claims made in Wikipedia about the number of his compositions."
- Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pete Hurd. The only item in the article potentially notable is the claim of having conducted the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. But like the "most prolific" claim, it needs to be put in context. Leopold Stokowski is a notable figure, but not everyone who played string bass for him is. Lukas Foss is a notable composer, but not all his students are. Also the length of study is important. (I had a one-hour composition lesson with Luciano Berio once--that does not make me a student of Berio's). In the end we have no cited pieces, major publisher, discography, links to performances, etc. Does not suggest notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2007 (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.