386:- 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?
49:
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.---
279:
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
48:
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
483:
There is no such evidence in this case, merely claims. "only if 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.
218:
216:
166:
252:
250:
222:
220:
337:
239:
237:
214:
212:
481:
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.
492:
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. --
256:
248:
254:
246:
121:
235:
231:
233:
229:
160:
423:
Plenty of notability claimed, though I feel I detect some COI. Definitely in need of referencing, but only if that fails should deletion result.
126:
490:
Notability is also not predictable. ...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future.
322:
17:
94:
89:
285:
98:
181:
518:
148:
36:
81:
517:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
497:
446:
409:
318:
281:
266:
226:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
261:
No reliable sources found in any of these searches. Sources already in the article are dubious at best. --
142:
310:
198:
391:
243:
138:
501:
470:
450:
432:
413:
395:
378:
352:
289:
270:
205:. The article's claims to significance center around 3 works. I've included relevent searches here:
63:
387:
58:
493:
442:
405:
314:
262:
174:
202:
188:
485:
466:
428:
374:
348:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
438:
401:
295:
306:". An interview would not be independent, and thus not usable for establishing notability.
303:
302:, and we cannot use the existence of an interview to prove notability, which is requires "
85:
51:
366:
154:
476:
362:
299:
462:
424:
370:
344:
115:
475:
I did read the post - "Plenty of notability claimed" - this does not satisfy the
209:
77:
69:
304:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
280:
deleted unless no improvements are made in a reasonable timeframe.
511:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
197:
This musical composer/performer/director does not seem to meet
369:. Peter Moss is also the name of a notable labor lawyer.
338:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
111:
107:
103:
173:
187:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
521:). No further edits should be made to this page.
441:, claiming notability does not establish it. --
404:, claiming notability does not establish it. --
8:
332:
336:: This debate has been included in the
296:Notability requires verifiable evidence
46:Delete without objections to recreation
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
461:Please read the rest of my post.
298:. The external link is not on a
1:
361:- none of the claims can be
538:
64:06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
514:Please do not modify it.
502:22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
471:10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
451:00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
433:22:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
414:00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
396:22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
379:21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
353:16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
290:14:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
271:14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
227:Stinkfoot, a Comic Opera
32:Please do not modify it.
437:Please read the above,
400:Please read the above,
244:The Rocky Horror Show
292:Nineteen Nightmares
479:guideline, because
282:Nineteen Nightmares
500:
449:
412:
355:
341:
327:
313:comment added by
269:
44:The result was
529:
516:
498:(LiberalFascist)
496:
447:(LiberalFascist)
445:
410:(LiberalFascist)
408:
342:
326:
307:
267:(LiberalFascist)
265:
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
54:
34:
537:
536:
532:
531:
530:
528:
527:
526:
525:
519:deletion review
512:
308:
300:reliable source
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
52:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
535:
533:
524:
523:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
456:
455:
454:
453:
418:
417:
416:
381:
356:
330:
329:
328:
315:LiberalFascist
259:
258:
241:
224:
195:
194:
131:
127:AfD statistics
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
534:
522:
520:
515:
509:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
482:
478:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
457:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
354:
350:
346:
339:
335:
331:
324:
320:
316:
312:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
291:
287:
283:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
257:
255:
253:
251:
249:
247:
245:
242:
240:
238:
236:
234:
232:
230:
228:
225:
223:
221:
219:
217:
215:
213:
211:
208:
207:
206:
204:
200:
199:WP:Notability
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
60:
56:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
513:
510:
494:Joshua Scott
489:
480:
443:Joshua Scott
420:
406:Joshua Scott
383:
367:good sources
358:
333:
309:— Preceding
276:
263:Joshua Scott
260:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
59:
57:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
210:Grange Hill
161:free images
388:Musicalady
78:Peter Moss
70:Peter Moss
53:Balloonman
345:• Gene93k
203:WP:NMUSIC
486:WP:NTEMP
363:verified
323:contribs
311:unsigned
122:View log
463:Peridon
439:WP:NRVE
425:Peridon
402:WP:NRVE
371:Bearian
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
359:Delete
139:Google
99:delete
182:JSTOR
143:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
477:WP:N
467:talk
429:talk
421:Keep
392:talk
384:Keep
375:talk
349:talk
334:Note
319:talk
286:talk
277:Keep
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
365:by
343:--
201:or
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
488::
469:)
431:)
394:)
377:)
351:)
340:.
325:)
321:•
288:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
465:(
427:(
390:(
373:(
347:(
317:(
284:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.