This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article was AfD'd some time ago (I have no idea why the link is not here). Since then, it has not been improved in any way. Rather than immediately AfD it again, I am going to ask what, if anything, people intend to do to improve this article (ie put in some reliable sources or other demonstrations of notability). --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Reliable sources are already present; (2) Notability is irrelevant; (3) The prior AfD wasn't a "no-consensus, defaults to keep" but a CLEAR consensus keep, so what the hell would make you think anything has changed? (4) That you think an article needs "improvement" is no reason to threaten to delete it--we're not on a deadline. When--and if--I get around to it I might work on it, or others might come along in the future and do it themselves. Why are you so eager to delete it? Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, your incivility is intolerable. I will not engage in this discussion if you will not do so in good faith. Good day, sir. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you deny it, I will ignore it and address your points: (1) No reliable independent sources given. One unreliable one, one non-independent one, neither of which constitutes significant coverage. (2) Notability is irrelevant? Since when? (3) The prior AfD was a "keep" on the basis and provision of future expansion. I'm not demolishing the house while it's being built. I'm asking you to take this stray 2 by 4 back to the store until such time as someone can build a house out with it. (4) I'm not even going to dignify this item with a response. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone else like to comment on this issue? Does anyone who participated in the AfD have further explanation as to their rationales? I'm particularly interested in several of you who voted "keep" under the rationales like this article could be encyclopedic, it could be expanded, or the subject might be demonstrably notable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
