Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Dalby (2nd nomination)

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 has shifted strongly to "keep," and sources provided by "keep" !voters have not been rebutted. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Dalby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no evidence he meets WP:MUSICBIO yet. In a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I could find of him was this article in the local weekly Kent Messenger. Couldn't find any RS that he'd written for, sung for or appeared in anything on the BBC, just fragments on social media, Soundcloud, etc. Editors hunting for coverage, please note there's an unrelated jockey with the same name, so you might want to exclude the word "jockey" on a search. Wikishovel (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Graham Dalby the way as it is, it will eventually meet WP:MUSICBIO. I will add sources to it. It was under construction, don't take it down. Mrtoadtv (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Likely more coverage in older newspapers, there's this [1], not a great reveiw, but it counts. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's also a short staff bio on Allmusic referenced in the article, which is an WP:RSMUSIC, and an album review in The Syncopated Times now cited too. The BBC website has evidence on his contributions, including Dalby and the orchestra he founded playing a significant section on BBC Radio 2 - see [2]. ResonantDistortion 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gather that the reason this article was nominated for deletion less than 7 hours after it was created is that it was previously deleted, 7 years ago. Given that the article has an Under Construction notice, though, surely more time could have been allowed for the article creator to work on it? It could have been tagged for whatever the issues were thought to be, rather than bringing it straight to AfD. And, article creator, I recommend that you work on new articles as drafts and move them when they're more ready. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it would have been better if I'd moved it to draft rather than taken it straight to AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:28, 4 February 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.