Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Slonimsky

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Slonimsky

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

Nominated via OTRS by the subject's daughter:- "The entry fails to explain to the reader why Nicolas Slonimsky is important and worth finding out about. It skips from 1927 to 1958 and then circles back to mention a few books written in between without providing titles or publication dates. It devotes an entire paragraph to describing local radio shows on which he was a guest, identifying their hosts by name, and mentions among his "notable" students someone who evidently attended a class he taught at UCLA. The material, such as it is, is taken from a glance at his autobiography and from his obituary in the NYTimes, as well as what can only be personal experiences or acquaintances of the writer." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The OTRS nomination is indeed a valid reason for a major copyedit/rewrite, but the subject is far too notable for deletion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Slonimsky is obviously worthy of an article here and, really, there's nothing wrong with the existing article that some editing can't fix.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete and WP:POINT are not strong reasons for deletion when the subject has a legitimate assertion to notability with reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article as it stands is poorly referenced, the subject is clearly notable which is the determining factor here. AfD is not for article improvement, necessary as it is. (Would it be better to refer the note on the article's inadequacy to a Project, such as WP:CM, and seek a clean-up?) AllyD (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep- a very notable, significant figure in 20th cdntury music. Of course the article needs improving but deletion should be out of the question.--Smerus (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it looks from the article like the complainant recently carried out some heavy editing in non-WP style which was reverted (not unreasonably) by another editor - but I don't think deletion should be allowed as an apporpriate revenge!--Smerus (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable figure, no reason to delete as pointed about by other users. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2013 (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.