Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Fortuin

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 no consensus. Courcelles 23:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fortuin

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

Vanity page for a non-notable composer who can't even afford to get a new website in the aftermath of the demise of Geocities. Incarnatus (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom on this one. James470 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His work has been recorded and a Google Books search returns discussion, e.g. a book (albeit by a collaborating instrument maker) and discussion in The American Organist. So sources there are, with or without Geocities, the question is whether they are sufficient for Notability in his (rather obscure) field. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find plenty of references, not only for his compositions but also about the hardware he designed. I also do not understand how lack of wealth of subject (if that statement from nom would be true) can be a reason for AfD nomination? --DeVerm (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The way I would have worded it is thus: "...who couldn't even spend a few minutes to get a new website in all this time since Geocities was taken down." James470 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps address this point, a Google search turns up his actual site. It is just that nobody had added it to the article. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... ain't it funny how people who create their own WP article are attacked over doing that with commercial interest etc. and now we have somebody who doesn't touch his WP article and that is held against him/article too; hard to satisfy the WP Deletists :-) --DeVerm (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at Google Scholar shows several published articles in notable journals (I've added one to the article), and he's got recorded compositions out there with respected distributors. I don't see any facts or tangible reasons stated by those who favor deletion. Scot Johnston (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (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.