Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 14

In deletion discussion, an admin stated that the article "was sourced almost entirely to student newspapers and other unreliable sources." That is incorrect. The article was sourced almost entirely to reliable sources not mentioned in the deletion discussion: Public Radio International (cited to PRX b/c archived), Empirical Musicology Review, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, a flagship / peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book on experimental music concepts, a local public/professional newspaper in Santa Cruz (Good Times), and The Open Space Magazine, which is a leading high-circulation publication on experimental music. The sources in the article included *no* student newspapers, and the information sourced to UCSC Newsday (not a student newspaper) were not crucial to the article.

This was my first article, and I'm still learning! I propose creating a shorter Ben Leeds Carson article using mainly the sources above, and perhaps *without* the PRI source, because (I acknowledge) PRI's "The World" was not discussing Carson's field in that article, and Carson is not important enough for extensive biographical detail.

The admins also disliked my citation of the LA Times, correctly pointing out that only one sentence in the article was about Carson. But many highly important experimental composers (Karlton Hester, Franklin Cox, Richard Barrett, John Rahn, Hans Thomalla), never receive attention from such a high-profile writer (Mark Swed is one of the nation's most respected music critics, and a Pulitzer nominee), and have far *less* attention from *peer-reviewed* high-distribution sources like The Open Space Magazine (Open Space published *four detailed essays* about Carson, with responses from Carson, in its fifth issue). I argue the standard of high-profile sources in an experimental genre like Carson's should not require major discussion in mainstream newspapers. Carson, like the others mentioned above are notable because they are repeatedly subjects of discussion in more specialized respected sources (especially high-level peer-reviewed sources).

I will let this go if I'm way off base here, but I'm initiating this review partly because I'd also like to create other pages on experimental composers, and I consider myself an objective and expert source in this field. If my other interests: e.g. James Brandon Lewis, Robin Hayward are also considered unworthy, I hope I can learn why before setting out to write! Nadibautista (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, the person who stated that the sources were student newspapers was an editor, not an admin (not that this would have made a difference). Secondly, there were three editors arguing for Deletion and no one who participated in the discussion was advocating Keeping the article so I don't see any other possible closure. There were other approaches you could have chosen to restart this article, like coming to talk to the closer (me), but you chose a Deletion review so this discussion must proceed for the next week. If you were not aware, a deletion reivew examines my closure of the discussion, not the merits of the article. The time to do that was during the period of the AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD discussion was clearly correctly decided. Nadibautista, we have our rules regarding deletion and notability because we need to make sure we can write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a topic, and these require excellent sources. A mere mention in the LA Times isn't enough for that, though you can certainly use it in the article to verify a specific point. Newspapers are not the only places we can look for sources, either, though these are very good standard - peer reviewed publications are potentially good sources as well. There's also no reason why you can't create an article on Carson if there are enough sources. Are you familiar with draft space? We're a bit backed up at Articles for Creation at the moment, but restoring a draft there so you can work on it might be a good solution if you think you can source this better. You'd then submit it for review and someone would take a look at it, although it's taking a few months at this point unfortunately, but if it's accepted that means a reviewer thought it would be likely to pass a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as clearly the outcome of the AfD, but happy to draftify if editor wants to work on it there. Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a discussion with three (including nom) delete votes could not reasonably be closed in another way. However, I would not object draftification if the user wants to work on this. However, if drafted, I would recommend submitting through AfC even though that is backlogged instead of quickly moving back to mainspace, which would result in either G4 if substantially identical or another AfD if no better sourcing are found. VickKiang (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Maybe guidance should be provided for filers whose article has been deleted and who want to create a new version of the article with better sources, advising them that the choices are article space and draft space, rather than DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and refund to draftspace. The AFD was correctly closed as delete as there was unanimous support for deletion. Relisting would have been a viable option as well due to limited participation, but that is not in any way required. Moving to draftspace will allow Nadibautista (or any other user with an interest in the subject) to improve the article before moving it back to mainspace so it will not be deleted again. Carson Wentz (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]