Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Taylor (composer)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. Several editors in the discussion suggested salt, noting threats of recreation and a history of past recreations. Salt will therefore be applied. joe deckertalk to me 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Taylor (composer)

edit
Justin Taylor (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has apparently been deleted for non-notability three times before, the last time was a speedy deletion, and non-notability is the reason I'm nominating it again. As mentioned on its discussion page, the only significant citations are either unverifiable or do not actually reference the subject, and, further, there is a suggestion that there is an intentional attempt here to deceive or at least to mislead editors. The article appears to be essentially the work of one editor, other editors either serving to check claims or else attending to matters of form rather than of substance (how the article says what it says, rather than what it says). TheScotch (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See references before making skeptical claims and deleting citations. Buy the books. The information is there. See my previous note on the other page for details about references, and mysteriously deleted citations (Jerome Kohl? The Scotch? You two seem heavily involved in an attempt to delete this article)—Music 416 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Music 416" is the "one editor" I spoke of above who has essentially written the article single-handedly. I have deleted no citations from the article (nor have I edited the article in any way, other than nominating it for deletion,--I've merely commented on its discussion page), and obviously Wikipedia keeps a history of editing anyone can view, so all deletions can be attributed to a Wikipedia moniker or an IP address. Nothing is "mysteriously deleted". I checked the references as well as I could without actually buying the books, which I'm not going to do, and which I think it would be unreasonable of "Music 416" to expect or to require any editor to do. My conclusion is that this "Justin Taylor" is not notable. Of course, I'm "heavily involved in an attempt to delete the article": I'm the one who nominated it for deletion, which is as plain as day to anyone who comes here. (For the record, I was not at all involved in any way in any of the previous three article deletion processes.)TheScotch (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; self-promotion, probably an autobiography, but most importantly, verifiable references of sufficient reliability are lacking. See excellent analysis by TheScotch on the article's talk page referenced in his rationale. Sorry, self-promotion on Wikipedia tends to end this way -- it's nothing personal. We have to restrict our entries to people notable enough that they are covered by multiple, non-trivial sources, and written people other than the subject. Antandrus (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion? Do some research on the subject before you assume things. I doubt Justin Taylor has time to sit here and write articles about himself. See my note on the talk page about specifics. Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete Many sources have already been demonstrated. See talk page. The other sources have been unverified by Jerome Kohl, Hairhorn and The Scotch before making these claims. They are only going on their own personal knowledge, hardly useful when compiling an on-line encyclopedia. Music416 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Feel free to scan the relevant pages of the books involved and post them where they can be seen. My own "personal knowledge" tells me that many of the claims here are inflated or outright fantasy. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you signed your name mysterious one. Music416 (talk

Left an extra tilde by mistake, nothing mysterious. Hairhorn (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that I was involved early on in the article, and first raised the issue of reliable sourcing on the talk page. I am discounting Techniques and materials of music as a reliable source as nobody seems to be able to verify this source. The only thing that remotely comes close is the InsideHalton article. InsideHalton is the website for a group of community newspapers. As such this represents a reliable source, but is strictly local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, the Gullion book is also a reliable source. Check Amazon for it. His name is listed right there!! I can scan in the two concert programs if that's helpful. The reference books are at my library, so I unfortunately don't have them at the moment. I used them when specifically looking for information on this composer along with the Gullion book. There is more information out there i'm sure, but unfortunately no one can contribute it because know-it-all editors keep deleting this article before even checking sources. If deleted, this article will return again and again, because the information is there and Taylor is important and notable enough.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "InsideHalton is the website for a group of community newspapers. As such this represents a reliable source, but is strictly local coverage".
The notice itself is unattributed (no reporter, no byline) and reads very much as if it were written and placed by the subject. TheScotch (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Whpq, the Gullion book is also a reliable source. Check Amazon for it. His name is listed right there!!"
Yep, "right there" next to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in "a book designed to teach children the basics of some of the world's greatest composers of classical music". Even if Justin Taylor were notable, he would have to be of fairly minor reputation to escape the notice of all the editors here with graduate degrees in music, which would still make the leap from Bach to Justin Taylor quite remarkable. As of Sunday night, however, Lulu vanity publishing was clearly attributing authorship of the "Gullion" book to one "Justin Taylor". There is a precedent, by the way, for Justin Taylor apparently self-publishing books (and not just scores). He also has a short, glib, ungrammatical bio of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach at Amazon (which lets you read its introduction, hence my assessment). TheScotch (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're crazy The Scotch. You have no proof! What are your motives here? To prove you can delete an article? Quit making up stories and get a life. The paper article is real, the Gullion book is real, the concert programmes are real and the reference books are real. The only things that aren't real are your claims against the subject of this article, who none of us know personally by the way. Your assesments are just that-yours. In my opinion, your assesments mean nothing. They're garbage. As a fan of Justin Taylor, I believe he is a breath of fresh air in the modern world of classical music. Your attitude proves my assesment. Open up your damn ears and eyes and quit ignoring the facts.

The fact that Taylor publishes his own music discounts him from being in Wikipedia? I guess that gets rid of 99.9% of rock musicians. In the end you can twist and turn the facts all you like. Like I mentioned before I am willing to upload scans of the concert programmes if they will help keep this article from not being deleted. Also mentioned before but ignored by you, is the fact that Lulu sells all kinds of books including major publishers, so your argument with that has no validity. I guess Justin Taylor hasn't escaped your notice now huh? Maybe Gullion knows Taylor? Maybe he's an advocate of his music and wanted to give him a break? Modern music is rarely mentioned in any classical books, so one should be happy people are continuing to cover it. There could be a million different reasons...

Whpq would know about the paper as I believe he lives around the area.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As stated above, the InsideHalton web site is the online publishing site for a group of Halton community newspapers, and is not a user submitted content site. However, the coverage is insubstantial, and the coverage is very local in nature so contributes very little towards establishing notability. As for the other sources, I call shenanigans. Let's consider Techniques and Materials of Music: From the Common Practice Period Through the Twentieth Century. The 2007 edition is cited in the article to page 348, but the book only has 320 pages. Amazon Amazon has the book available for searching, and there is no "Justin Taylor" in the book. You can do ths search yourself. An introduction to...Great Composers by Ronald Gullion is likely a Lulu book although it names Patch as the publisher. Gone from Lulu, but the google cache still shows it. The author's spotlight leads to infoatjustintaylordotca, the lulu storefront for Justin Taylor. The Complete Idiot's Guide Music Dictionary is cited to page 324. I physically held a copy of the book in my hand and was unable to access page 324 because the last page is 321. In other words, some of the sources have been deliberately misstated to give the appearance of a well sourced article. -- Whpq (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq a couple things. Techniques and Materials I already discussed with you last year. We came to the conclusion that the page count was wrong on one of the websites.

Taylor's storefront could be stocking the Gullion book (although it doesnt appear to be in stock anymore-google cached) since he is named in the book. Like you mentioned the publisher is Patch, not a publisher Taylor has previously been associated with. Nobody knows for certain unless someone gets ahold of Taylor or Gullion himself and gets the inside story.

As far as the complete idiot's guide music dictionary, you sure you have the right edition? There are a couple different books by that name from different authors. I held the book in my hand last year and page 324 was very much there.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two busybody librarians contributing to OCLC WorldCat also held the book in their hands last year (2010), and counted exactly 321 pages. The ISBN-13 of their book was 9781592579976 (pbk) and 9781615649976 (cloth). What is the ISBN of your copy? It appears, however, to be copyright 2010 instead of 2009, as cited in the article. In fact, if you believe WorldCat, there is no 2009 edition of a book of this exact title by Stanford Felix, or by any other author.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Music416 still wants to keep up his charade of sources. As Jerome Kohl points out, there is no 2009 edition of the book, unless you believe it is missing out the Worldcat catalog, and Google Books missed indexing it, and Amazon.com who will sell anything with an ISBN has chosen to ignore it. I usually assume good faith, but in this case -- bullshit! -- Whpq (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And oh yeah, you're right; the page count was wrong on one of the sites. Amazon has corrected it from the misstated 400 to 320. -- Whpq (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The researches of TheScotch, Whpq and Jerome Kohl, as laid out on this page and on Talk:Justin Taylor (composer), seem to indicate that this is a case of over-enthusiastic self-promotion using fabricated and misleading references. The "Inside Halton" reference is the closest thing we have to a reliable source, but one local source is not enough to signify notability for our purposes. Given that this article has been deleted three times previously on notability grounds, I would suggest that a WP:SALT may be in order. --Deskford (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, that is your opinion yet again. I held the book in my hands last year, so I definately know how many pages were in it and if it exists. As regards to the self-promotion comments, I am not the subject nor affiliated with the subject, so that would not be a fair or accurate assessment in this case, seeing as i did research this article.Music416 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.144.202 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Deskford's suggestion that this may be a candidate for SALT, I should call attention to Music416's threat, "Someone else will just repost this article if deleted", found on the article's talk page here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He also threatens above (on this AfD page), "If deleted, this article will return again and again." TheScotch (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I am unable to find any reliable sources that convince me that this is anything other than a vanity page for a non-notable composer. WP:N is not met. --sparkl!sm hey! 12:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to make a suggestion. Rather than complete delete this entry, which is valid as a person, but perhaps some of the verbiage is in dispute, could we keep this entry but add to it by making it generic about the name. Instead list all the Justin Taylor's, such as the author and this composer and people like myself. My name just happens to be Justin Taylor (http://justintaylor.tel). This is just a thought on how it could be modified and made usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakingbadger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing what is called a "disambiguation page" and, as a concept, this is certainly not controversial. The question of keeping or deleting an article on grounds of notability (I think this must be what you mean by "valid as a person") is a separate issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is a navigation aid to distinguish articles that share a name. The key point here is that it is a navigation aid, and not a content page. Either Justin Taylor the composer is notable, in which case he would have an article, or he is not notable, and he would not have a page to navigate to, and therefore would not appear as an entry on the disambiguation page. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It happens, actually, that there is already a Wikipedia article about a fictional television character called "Justin Taylor". I haven't read that article and have no opinion about it, but if we assume for the sake of argument that this fictional character is notable, then it may be wise in certain contexts for you to differentiate yourself with your middle name, as I see you've done in your e-mail account (or whatever this is). I don't know if television writers generally bother to give their characters middle names except in special cases (well, there's "Maynard G. Krebs", where the G. stands for Walter). Running into real persons who share one's characters's names must be a hazard of the profession. TheScotch (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The subject comprehensively fails the criteria at WP:COMPOSER. His scores and recordings are self-published and not held in a single library. The Guillem book is described as "a short book aimed at children introducing the great composers of classical music" and appears to exist (or have existed) solely at the subject's lulu.com store and is likewise not held in a single library. In fact, nothing by an author of that name is held in any library. The InsideHalton article was written from Taylor's own press release, and says so. The remainder of the references also appear to be spurious. If the Brampton Symphony Orchestra had indeed given the Canadian premiere of Taylor's Prelude No. 2 (as he claims on his website), it seems to have gone entirely unnoticed by the rest of the world, including Brampton. There is no evidence that Helene Grimaud (?!) or Alun Francis (?!) have ever performed his work. Nor is there any evidence that his work has ever been performed at the Beethovenfest (?!). Were these names just pulled out of a hat? Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 10 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Taylor_(composer)&oldid=1301226466"