Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hey Lloyd

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 keep. Consensus seems to be that the Oxford/Grove encyclopedia entry and the Daily Telegraph obit get over the GNG line. Continued article improvement welcome. Go Phightins! 20:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hey Lloyd

[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)

I find little indication that this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The sum total of information I can find about him is from his obituaries (and even of those I only see 3). Primefac (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Hello. I added many references and sources today. Alas, someone has reverted everything which I spent the whole day doing.

Please note that I wrote the first versions of this article in 2009. At the end of that year most of what you have removed recently was already in the article. Please look at and compare the versions from the end of 2009. It was not added, as you believe, from any of his obituaries. There's nothing new in them what so ever. I hope you will understand this: Richard Lloyd was a major figure in church and cathedral music over the last 60 years or so. To delete the article would be somewhat close to removing one about Bach or Mozart. His music has been sung and recorded everywhere over the last decades. Musicians all around the world will not accept the deleting of this article. If there is anything else I can add or change in the article please do let me now. I too am a professional musician and know how important this article for the world of music is. Many thanks! Edmund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebrownless (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy for that to be the case, but there are still no references pre-death that verify or even indicate that is true. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the complete article on Richard Lloyd is reloaded I will be able to add the following important reference: There is an article about Richard Lloyd's life in The Oxford Dictionary of Music - (6 ed. 2013). It confirms all information about him as a musician. If he weren't very important in the world of music he wouldn't be in this book. Ebrownless (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The book which I quoted in the original article (The Organists and Organs of Hereford Cathedral) also confirms everything pre-death about Richard Lloyd. It was published in 1976.Ebrownless (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Ebrownless I checked what you had added. I think you had only used one citation and most content was uncited. If you can maybe just add a bit of info with what has citations, I will review and place a vote. Most important is to add as many good citations as you can find to show notability, even if its a book. Again, do not add any content that is uncited. Also, do you have a Conflict of Interest with this person? why are you interested in this person. If you are somehow related or working for them, you need to disclose it.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last part - he is dead, so "formerly worked for" might be more appropriate. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a long-standing, stable article, with good sources. In late April, Lloyd died. The stable version of the article prior to this is here (9 April 2021), and the article had good biographical information, albeit, not as well sourced as it might have been. His death actually prompted the provision of source citation, improving the article. Some time later, edits were made removing almost all that information; then an AfD made based largely on absence (i.e. that very recent removal) of sourced biographical information! If the AfD discussion is to continue it should be based on the significant article (e.g. 9 April 2021 linked above, and since reliably sourced), not on its interim, short-term denuded form. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feline, thank you for your latest work on the article. My version from May 21st is more up to date - I had added new recordings and many citations etc. I have spent the past week intensively researching the life of RHL and will now add some more information and citations to your latest version. Richard Lloyd was primarily a composer of choral music - that is what he is so well known for. I will therefore add again the list of his choral music. Ebrownless (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My chief concern was that the AfD appeared to be based on a massively denuded form of the article, thus was based on a false premise. So my overarching "big picture" aim was to restore some reasonably recent, stable form of it. My apologies if that restoration omitted some of the "fine brush-stroke" material you had added in the notability/AfD maelstrom! Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No problem - I understand. I have now finished making all my additions and corrections. I really hope that the article will now be permanent. Ebrownless (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to understand what the problems are here. 1 I wrote the original article on Richard Lloyd with few references because the book which I used - an official publication by Hereford Cathedral in England - had his biography in it up until his retirement. I have now added many more citations about him and I am sure this will be enough. This book from 1976 has been republished in 1988 and 2005. There are many internet pages about Richard Lloyd - they have exactly the same information: whether from the book published by Hereford Cathedral or, as so often happens, very many are linked to the article on Lloyd at Wikipedia. Richard Lloyd is now in several international encyclopedias of music. The book was written by two very well-known and important musicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_Shaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Massey_(organist) 2 Then comes the issue with Lloyd's compositions. I added the list of compositions which was proof-read by Richard Lloyd himself: There are the names of the compositions and the well-known British publishers of all his many published works. 3 If you look at the lists of compositions of most famous composers most of them do not have references. Why this is necessary just for Richard Lloyd I really don't know. If I, eg., were to add references now to all of Franz Schuberts songs it would take 636 references. This would be the same for all composers - even the most famous - it would simply take up far too much space and clutter up each article with far too much unnecessary information. However, if there is a Wikipedia article for any very famous composition one can rightly add a link to that page. 4 When I added references to Lloyd's works recently I simply added one link to a search at each publisher for works of Richard Lloyd. If anyone here were to click on these links you would find all Lloyds works which are now available at that publisher. Please try clicking on the first reference to his choral music: you will instantly find 35 pieces by Lloyd. I could have added a reference for each work and there would be hundreds of references - most of them repeating themselves. Right now there is simply one link per publisher and that makes everything clear and simple. Do you want me to add a few hundred footnotes to the page of Richard Lloyd now? It will be a mess and the list of references will be several metres long.Ebrownless (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebrownless: The topic here is whether or not to delete the entire article. That should be the main concern. To defend the article's very existence, the primary need is a good biography section to establish his notability with reliable sources. I think it is going to be harder to defend the inclusion an entire catalogue of absolutely everything he has ever written; we should appreciate that this is a secondary issue. Possible models for the "look and feel" of the article might be Jean Langlais, Harrison Oxley or Nicholas Danby (I pick those at random). They are, at heart, about the biography with a few selected works and recordings. I would suggest keeping focus on: (1) biography (2) a small number of works and recordings that meet "notability". Losing the catalogue is relatively unimportant compared to losing the entire article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituary in the Daily Telegraph. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been considered to meet our notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep obit in Daily Telegraph, a newspaper of record, coverage also in [1]. He also has a brief entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Music, [2], indicative of some amount of notability. There's less coverage than I'd expect, but I think it's just about enough to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph and Oxford Dictionary of Music which are two high quality sources, passes WP:Basic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (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.