Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hannan (composer)

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. Tone 08:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hannan (composer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of the article is primarily an academic. Presumably, those who posted and edited the article are associated with the subject.

Whilst the subject is listed primarily as a composer, there are very few citations to support this, nor are there many in the public domain that COULD be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Czaplowski (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australian Music Centre lists 100+ compositions by the subject (see here). A google search provides some possible sources for use in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, and per shaidar cuebiyar. Also, someone needs to fix this mal-formed nomination. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers and WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and another, bio and works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+ an exhibition. Can this end soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem here. --Smerus (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure what the issue is here. Sourcing seems OK, definitely not bad enough to warrant deletion. Seems to have decent coverage, the burning piano thing seems notable as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lets look at the nomination. "The subject of the article is primarily an academic." Academics can be notable. "Presumably, those who posted and edited the article are associated with the subject." Looking at the history apart from one declared minor edit the is nothing to associated editing (unlike most of the nominators editing that is clearly connected to the subjects he edits, double standards.) "Whilst the subject is listed primarily as a composer, there are very few citations to support this,". Um? Academic or composer? Few citations in the article of available? Few citations for just composer? How about for academic? "nor are there many in the public domain that COULD be used." What does being in the public domain have anything to do with anything? Almost a speedy keep. Nomination fails to raise any real reason for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per demonstrated encyclopedic relevance. Further, the nominator ought to be
slapped with a whale for this edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2020 (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.