Deletion of Horace William Petherick

Comment: but condense ''heavily''. Adding information isn't the issue, it's the presentation of information. {{reply|Johncosgrave}} like a lot of your articles, this is bogged down by intricate details, fanatic analysis and exegesis of primary sources, and undue personal editorial flourishes approaching |original research (your interpretation of sources). Statements like "as can be seeing by searching on Amazon or similar sites." are clearly YOU drawing inferences and making statements that even if true are |undue weight.  Statements posed as questions like  "Was the cello really by Gesù?" are not encyclopedic, they are just filler. Trim the fluff! If you want to write a popular or scholarly article with your own analysis, commentary and dynamic prose, start a blog, or send a manuscript to a journal, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Let the sources speak for themselves and determine due weight, no matter how great or interesting you think the subject (or a minute sub-subject) is. Stay |on topic, |be concise, and use |in text attributions judiciously. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google|Wikipedia is not Google
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:UNDUE||WP:OFFTOPIC||WP:TERSE||WP:INTEXT)

Comment: A lot of the sources are old, but there's no expiry date on sources. Easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)