Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mort Glickman

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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mort Glickman

Mort Glickman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This prolific movie music composer is borderline IMO. He gets a couple of pages in The Encyclopedia of Film Composers, but a lot of his work is uncredited,[1] even at the end of his career, and all or nearly all for low-budget B movies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as he is included in the Encyclopedia of Film Composers and the written work referenced in the article, seems to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Has a resume and is credited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reply. Everyone on IMDb has a resume and is credited. What has he done to satisfy WP:ARTIST? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are right that IMDb is not a reliable indicator of notability. Why, then, do you cite it in support of this nomination? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• To show that most of his work is uncredited throughout his career. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per nom. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just in case the point I am making is unclear, I mean that the nominator stated a clear reason for keeping, i.e. that the subject has an entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher. The point of our notability guidelines is that we follow such reliable sources rather than our personal opinions about importance. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Has a significant number of released works . Star Islington (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are four keeps, much of the justification is very weak. Additional input is needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as the Keep votes are noticeably still questionable with there still being no convincing signs to improve this to a independently notable level, my searches and examinations have found nothing better too. Delete as a result of all of this. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, does not pass WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Atlantic306's rationale: a long deceased person who gets substantial (multipage) coverage in a bona fide encyclopedia on a notable topic like film music belongs in our encyclopedia as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• In one book. What about GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected"? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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.