Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Smith (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Smith (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)

Fifteen years after being tagged as a possible COI BLP with insufficient sourcing, this article still contains no reliable sources. A Google search turns up nothing of note for me, either. BD2412 T 02:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. BD2412 T 02:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that Allmusic was a reliable source if it had a byline. As I've written numerous times before on AfD, an autobiography tends to have both original research and censorship issues. What do folks think about this particular case? Bearian (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I don't think this article has enough substance to have those sorts of issues. It has a single short sentence on the subject itself, and the rest is a directory of works which are themselves non-notable. Allmusic may be reliable to show something exists, but it's not a source for notability of its topics, since it purports to cover "all" music, however trivial that may be. BD2412 T 00:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, in terms of staff written biographies of music artists AllMusic despite it's name is more selective than Wikipedia. For example, most of the artists listed in this deletion topic of bands and musicians do not have bios on AllMusic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still not say that having an AllMusic staff-written bio, as the only source outside one music magazine review and the artist's own website, suffices for Wikipedia notability. BD2412 T 22:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An Allmusic staff bio (and/or staff review) does count towards notability, but would not be sufficient on its own. Further to the AM bio and magazine review cited in the article, the subject also has critical reviews here and here; however I do not have sufficient familiarity with the genre to robustly conclude whether these are reliable or polished blogs, though the expose.org site does appear to have an editorial policy and has graduated from a print magazine, which is a positive sign. ResonantDis_tortion 23:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion. Thank you for addressing my concerns. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2025 (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.