Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leland Smith

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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leland Smith

[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)

Subject of article is a non notable musician and teacher that does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not satisfy GNG. A BEFORE conducted via google keeps bringing up a LinkedIn profile of his. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Smith single-handedly developed what is arguably the best music typesetting program SCORE (software), and warranted a three page obituary in a major academic journal. A Google on 'Leland Smith SCORE' brings up a non-trivial amount of notable mentions, as it does Google Books (per BEFORE). I consider these to satisfy the notability guidelines. pgbrown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. we need to fill in the references, but based on the obit at Stanford, he was a major influence in his field. I would be very reluctant to nominate an article for deletion on someone who had been a full professor at Stanford without a very full search according to BEFORE, not limited to Google. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between his SCORE (software) (especially) and his book (which I added to the article; I didn't find reviews but it is held by 36 libraries according to WorldCat; notable also as the first completely typeset music book), I'm seeing WP:NCREATIVE shaping up. That's bolstered by his work as a composer -- I found a brief nytimes review of a performance of a piece of his, for example. The CMJ obit helps support GNG. I think that the combination forms a solid keep case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough reliable sources coverage as shown above to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2020 (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.