Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 2
 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 delete. per
WP:SNOW. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
]
Adrianus Johannes Lemmens
- Adrianus Johannes Lemmens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly speculative article about authors father with clear inaccuracies. Sources don't back up what is claimed.
WP:OR and fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) The Banner talk 09:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
]
- Keep:: This article is in my view not - speculative - and I was not the original author - see view history ! The problem is that Mr. The Banner (his pseudonym indicates he is English but he is actually Dutch) does not read the references and/or the Links to the pages but goes immediately on the attack which he has also got a history of on the Dutch wikipedia. This article has a tremendous amount of references and Links mentioned apart from the fact that the person the page is about was decorated with a WW2 war medal - the OHK !
- Also notice that Mr. The Banner has not contributed any information or correction to this article - only the request to delete it without any proper reasons? The least he could do is let us know what he thinks are the speculative parts??Glemmens1940 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep:::A lot of people contributed to this article after the initial "multiple issues" notification was put on the article. A lot of references have been added and pictures that support the claims made in the article. I don't see why this article is nominated for deletion. Menke66 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's because the nominator doesn't believe the subject passes the ]
- As long as there is plain nonsense in the article, like the bravery medals, the article is too unreliable to stay. And even his usual sidekick Menke should by now know that the War Commemorative Cross was not given for bravery, but for being at a place when things got hot. The Banner talk 12:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- If there are errors in an article, we address that by correcting the article and not be deleting it - and if there are disagreements about the content, we seek consensus on the article talk page, and then use the WP:DR process if that cannot be achieved. It may be that this article should be deleted for notability reasons (I make no judgment on that at this point) but it will not be deleted just for containing factual inaccuracies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- It is factual inaccuracies in combination with WP:COI. The Banner talk 14:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Boing! - If the factual inaccuracies lie in the claims of notability, that will quickly lead to deletion.--v/r - TP 14:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed - hence my use of the word "just", meaning that factual inaccuracy alone is not enough. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is factual inaccuracies in combination with
- If there are errors in an article, we address that by correcting the article and not be deleting it - and if there are disagreements about the content, we seek consensus on the article talk page, and then use the
- Keep This could be a good article. The Career section needs to pov-edited, and the matter of the medals clarified, but it looks sound.--Auric talk 11:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It could be a good article, but not in an encyclopaedia! The subject has no claim to notability that I can see from the article - along with countless thousands of others during the Second World War he was in a merchant ship, he was a prisoner, etc etc. Nothing at all remarkable is suggested to make him worth an article but thousands of others not. There are attempts to give notability by association ("the family was taken by the British HMS Loch Killisport (K628) on which Prince Philip served") or to suggest involvement in significant events ("On 7th December 1942 , the same day as the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Netherlands declared war to Japan..."). As I said, it could be a good article and an interesting read, but then so could my grandfather's experience as an airman in the RAF! Along with everyone else's. But notability is not here. There is also the considerable problem of COI editing.Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, the same article was deleted from the Dutch language Wikipedia on 26 March (see this). Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - per Emeraude basically. I have probably half-a-dozen direct and distant relatives who would be no more or less notable than the subject. As for specific guidelines, I certainly don't think he would pass WP:GNG. The newspaper clipping that mentions his exam is exactly that - a passing mention with a list of others; hardly significant coverage. An important piece of family history, no doubt, but not the stuff of an encyclopaedia. Stalwart111 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- One of the issues at stake at the dutch written wikipedia was that Glemmens1940 claimed his father to have received the Cross of Merit. That claim couldn't be verified though. Suddenly it appears here he received the War Commemorative Cross (nl:Oorlogsherinneringskruis) instead, but this was NOT a medal for (individual) bravery - which of course doesn't mean Lemmens wasn't brave or anything the like. Yet, receiving this medal can't be deemed the singular event which makes Lemmens notable. Notum-sit (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- PS1 the Talk page of the deleted dutch article is still intact: nl:Overleg:Adrianus_Johannes_Lemmens. Several issues were addressed there to get clarified which Glemmens1940 never cared to answer. Notum-sit (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- PS2 the clasp JAVA-ZEE 1941-1942 doesn't refer uniquely to the Battle of the Java Sea (which took place on February 27 1942 and following days) but to a wider range of events and time. Sofar no evidence has been presented that Lemmens was present at the battle itself. Notum-sit (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. per Stalwart and lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The chief claim of notability is the War Commemorative Cross. My research into the War Commemorative Cross results in much the same conclusion as Notum-sit. The medal is awarded to anyone who sees combat and there are different variations depending on what their duties were. But I saw nothing that said "bravery" outside the normal bravery of any soldier. This cross seems to equate to the WP:MILNG. Between the deletion discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia and here, I see some battle ground behaviors (accusations of cliques). It seems to me that Glemmens1940 is seeking a memorial for his father and fabricating medals (Cross of Merit on Dutch Wikipedia).--v/r - TP 14:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Delete The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I've trimmed some of the irrelevant and disallowed links and references, but DGG sums it up correctly. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject is clearly not notable; editor has a clear conflict of interest; article is written in a very subjective way; Wikipedia is not the place for him to honor his father. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 21:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Familypedia might be a good place.--Auric talk 22:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Stories of war veterans like this should certainly be preserved somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the right place unless there is sufficient notability shown - and this one really does not appear to have that notability. I would urge the author to preserve it elsewhere - perhaps, as had been suggested, on a genealogy website? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. per NOT MEMORIAL. Familypedia is a good alternative and thanks to Auric for pointing it out. MarnetteD | Talk 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Held neither a rank nor a decoration usually considered to give "automatic" right of inclusion and doesn't seem to be notable for anything specific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, although his wartime experience is interesting, I have only found a handful of passing mentions in non-primary WP:SOLDIER, as the verified award/decoration is not a high level award/medal/decoration for individual act(s) of valor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Speedy Delete No claim of notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - If the information now in the article were set out in reliable sources, then I could see how the topic could meet WP:GNG. However, the information sourced in the article is historic information not directly connected to Lemmens life. For example, "The Dutch East Indies inhabitants promptly nicknamed the Japanese the yellow faces." is generic history information as it was not Lemmens who promptly nicknamed the Japanese the yellow faces. The amount of source information available specific to Lemmens life seems to be the same as would be available for anyone having war service and receiving a medallion for general war operations with a r specific war action. The article contains original research by reading too much in his Internment card. The article also relies on a "Newspaper of 1932". Here, Menke66 wrote File:Newspaper where Lemmens is mentioned when he received his exam.jpg is "a copy of a digital newspaper of 1929, so free of copyright" and "Date 1929", but the article says "1932" and here, Menke66 posted "Newspaper of 1932". Overall, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand alone article. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)]
Comment: By now I have received several (5) threatening e-mails with legal/police action to start when the article is deleted. It was demanded that the article would be restored to the version of his sidekick Menke on 2 April 2013. I am not impressed by this, so the closing administrator should do what is best for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 12:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have revoked his ability to use the Wikipedia email system -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've sent you an email too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Snowball delete. Everything the nominator said is true. Non-notable individual and strong BB 12:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Delete - Does not seem to meet ]
- 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.
- 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. - there is a consensus to keep, even after discounting the sockpuppetry. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roberta Brown
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedspa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: |username}}.{{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |
- Roberta Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable stunt double, previously deleted at prod. No
]- Have re-entered some career details with sources. She is notable as a woman swordmaster in a male dominated profession. There are a number of swordmasters and stuntmen mentioned on wikipedia who have articles.REVUpminster (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Being a female in a male-dominated field does not make for notability. And the other articles you mention are irrelevant as ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the best I could find was mention in an LA Times article about sword choreography, along with other people involved in that. She does not meet the notability requirements for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Focus of article in LA Times Mentioned and quoted in a more-than-trivial fashion in Backstage Telegraph But even with coverage as a female swordmaster whose opinion is sought out by the press, this is perhaps not enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Keep At least she appeared on the ITV series The Story of Costume Drama [41] and also on youtube there is an interview with her split in two about her involvement with Charlie's Angels from day one. It is more than the other hundred or so articles about stunt actors on wikipedia.REVUpminster (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- YouTube isn't ]
- Is the ITV programme and it's commentary and interview with Brown a reliable source. I am an inclususionist and think all knowledge is useful to someone and even this article that I did not create should be saved.REVUpminster (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a stunt person on a TV show, abysmally failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Wikipedia should ignore the Hollywood practice of recognizing the 1,000 people who appear in ten minutes worth of credits these days. What's next, an article about the caterer for Queen of Swords? This isn't "knowledge." It doesn't even rise to the level of Hollywood trivia. Qworty (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)]
- This is a stunt person on a TV show, abysmally failing
- Is the ITV programme and it's commentary and interview with Brown a reliable source. I am an inclususionist and think all knowledge is useful to someone and even this article that I did not create should be saved.REVUpminster (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- YouTube isn't ]
That is an example of WP:ITBOTHERSME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taram (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is the TV programme a reliable source? Also should the creator of the article User talk:Taram of the proposed deletion. He is still active. REVUpminster (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The LA Times article can be viewed be viewed here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Reply and Keep Thank you for contacting me about this discussion Whpq and thank you for suggesting I be contacted REVUpminster. Unfortunately, I am in a battle with a publishing company in New York today and so I do not have alot of time to spend on this matter(today); however, I will give my input. As I review the history of the page, it had a complete page as of April 1, 2013. Then on April 2nd (Brown's birthday interestingly enough), the vast majority of information on the page was deleted. That which was left was re-written to say that after being a swordmaster, Brown is a Mahjong player. No offense to the avid Mahjong players out there, but of course that is going to make a person sound insignificant. I noticed that this page has been located successfully in Wikipedia since December of 2009 with no comments on eliminating it until April 2, 2013. It does not seem to me that a person goes from being a part of history to insignificant. There was something behind the attempt to eliminate this page on April 2 and it would be worthwhile knowing what that was. I briefly reviewed the notability requirements for Wikipedia and here is my response matched with that information: Before the vast majority of the Brown page was removed on April 2nd, there were a number of cited sources to be used for information. The information on the page that was removed was completely reliable and verifiable. A problem Wikipedia has in some cases is that some editors only count a verifiable source as an article on the internet. If you consider how one cites research papers, one notes that articles, video, audio, and interviews are also reputable sources. One can create a page on the internet and start referring to it as a source. That is not as reliable as an in person interview. Brown is not a one horse wonder, nor should other biographies be judged by that standard. For Americans, John Wilkes Booth was a tolerable touring actor barely worth mentioning in the annals of history, then he supposedly killed the sitting president of the United States. That is one thing. He never did anything else that was significant. Does that make him a one horse wonder not worth mentioning. Many historians would beg to disagree with that. Qworty's comment "Being a female in a male-dominated field does not make for notability" is also worth a reply: Nor is being black or a Jew or anything else; however when one persists and opens doors for others, one is significant. Martin Luther King was not the first person to march against segregation; however, he was the first to be recognized and recognition made the effort significant. Qworty's comment is also concerning because on April 4, 2013 s/he was reported at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page for Persistent disruption in articles on gender studies academics. I am hoping that there is not a pattern of harassment going on. Regarding John Pack Lambert's comment that she does not meet the notability requirements for an actor, I totally agree. Roberta is a terrible actor. She is a swordmaster and the first female to make inroads into television at that. She had to fight, struggle and work for that a male dominated profession to give her that chance and in doing so, she opened doors for other women, especially Jewish women, to live their dreams of being a swordmaster, if that is what they want. Now I know you all will do whatever you want, so nothing I have to say matters, but as REVUpminster commented, every participant in history that helps move this world just a little bit forward matters and is worth noting especially for those who are yet to come. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go back to my other publishing battles. 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Taram (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep I find it very interesting that Qworty started deleting large chunks from Roberta Brown's page at 05:47 on 2 April 2013 when 2,998 bytes of information was removed. S/he did so again at 06:11 on that same date when 5,122 bytes of information was removed. Then at 06:12, s/he added a tag saying that perhaps Brown is not notable enough. It was not until 06:16 that day (2 April 2013) that Qworty created a tag and page recommending Roberta Brown for deletion. This pattern suggests an attempt to plant evidence to support his/her attempt. Wikipedian John Pack Lambert mentioned above, "the best I could find was mention in an LA Times article about sword choreography, along with other people involved in that." He then goes on to say that Brown does not meet notability requirements as an ACTOR which Taram admirably addressed above. That said, here are a just a few articles from notable and reputable news sources about Roberta Brown (articles are listed by publication name):- The Fightmaster - Summer 2003 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/Fightmaster_summer2003.pdf,
- The L.A. Times 10/11/96 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/LATimes_061011.pdf,
- BackstageWest "Arms & the Woman" 9/9/04 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/BSW_040909.pdf,
- BackstageWest "Punch Lines" 8/14/06 http://www.backstage.com/news/punch-lines/,
- The Brandeis Review - August 2006 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/Brandeis_060801.pdf,
- (Deutsche)Job Report - October 2005 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/JobReport_051001.pdf,
- The L.A. Times 3/10/2000 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/LATimes_2000_0310.pdf,
- The Telegraph 16 September 2002 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/4711712/Fence-your-way-to-fitness.html.
Qworty cannot declare articles noted by REVUpminster to be "irrelevant." That is merely his/her opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. There is a great body of work to show that she is one whose opinion IS sought out by others. Thank you for noting that MichaelQSchmidt. I had not seen the ITV presentation on The Story of the Costume Drama. I had heard of it and I remember the day they rode up and down the streets of LA practicing sword fights form a mock chariot. I remember seeing the raw footage and the upset when the cop showed up to ask what they were doing. Roberta is relevant and notable. She has been busy the past few years raising a child as a single mom, but that does not allow one to disregard her earlier body of work. Those who would persistently disrupt articles on gender studies have a much too slanted view to give a forthright appropriate opinion in this matter and it is my opinion that those thoughts need to be discounted. Wordsword1Wordsword1 (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Insufficient sourcing for notability. Wow, some of you people really don't understand how sourcing works. Only ONE of the sources given above is ABOUT her--the LA Times. The others are about other topics and/or mention her only briefly. A single story in the LA Times is never going to be enough to source a Wikipedia article. She fails WP:42: "Articles require SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Qworty (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)]
- WP:42 Irrelevent. It is not policy or a guideline. REVUpminster (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Keep More sources. Clearly notable. Lots of these articles are about her. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Such as? Qworty (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Such as Los Angeles Times Backstage West and Brandeis Review for instance. And there were others offered above that make a strong case toward her being "notable enough for Wikipedia". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Such as? Qworty (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per sources offered, some in depth, that address the subject directly and in detail... giving us a meeting of the primary notability guideline and allowing the maintenance of an encyclopdiec article. Once the GNG is met, we need not then decide if she fails an SNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)]
- You apparently have overlooked:
- Marlowe, J.T. (Summer 2003). "To the Point" (PDF). The Fight Master: 33–34. Retrieved April 6, 2013.
- Simmons, Carrie (August 2006). "Fencer Makes Good Neighbor" (PDF). The Brandeis Review. Retrieved April 6, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- To me the TV interview in a programme made by a respected third party, ITV, with commentary and interview subtitled as fight director is the biggest notability factor and you only need one. The fact it is on youtube which is only a transmission system for content is irrelevent. I am not new but how do you cite a TV programme. There are templates for web, news, book, and journal but not TV or Radio.REVUpminster (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Roberta Brown biography". TV.com. February 3, 2004. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
- "Roberta Brown credits". TV.comm. April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Weak keep Does demonstrate some reliable sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
KEEP Just discovered that in 2000 Brown wrote the afterward to Nick and Anita Evangelista's book The Woman Fencer.(Evangelista, Nick. "The Woman Fencer". Print text. Amazon.com/Wish Press. Retrieved 7 April 2013.) The book on history, women's issues in fencing, and techniques in fencing has become a classic in fencing salons in the US. That is because, as in many other sports, women are often marginalized in the fencing world; thousgh, we do know that on the popular front that changed, somewhat, when Mariel Zagunis won fencing gold at the Olympics about a decade ago. Wordsword1Wordsword1 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Published works
- ISBN 978-1930546486 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)]
- "Women of Action Network-Contributors". Website. Rearden LLC. Retrieved 7 April 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - To echo: Sadads ... "seems to clearly meet notability per sourcing" ... talk) 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Keep. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- SOCK PUPPETRY There has been activity on this page from three blocked socks. The investigation originally concerned the Andrew Helm page, but the same three accounts, Wordsword1 and SNCKnight being puppets of Taram, have argued for keeping this article too, see the strikethrough-entries above. Hst20 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2013 (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.
- 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 delete. There is a clear consensus to delete, once the socks are scrapped. It should be noted also that the "keep" votes don't actually present evidence for passing various notability criteria and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
George Komsky
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedspa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: |username}}.{{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |
- George Komsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
WP:GNG -- no awards etc., no substantial coverage. The article is constructed out of air, using press releases and generic websites -- and the main point is there's nothing else to use. Do have a look at the history -- quite a collection of socks, for an article less than a week old, and obviously an intensive effort by a PR firm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
]
- Delete. Fails ]
- Delete Obvious socks and clear conflict of interest violation. Main contributor's user name points to the owner of George Komsky's PR firm and author of several sources within the article. That wouldn't be a reason for deletion, except that her client doesn't fulfill any of the notability requirements as noted by nominator.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Comment In fairness to the main contributor, there has been no attempt to hide the fact that he/she represents Komsky, nor has the use of alternative names been used deviously, as far as I can see. Commercial involvement doesn't automatically preclude article creation, which is why I responded to a request to improve the article having previously speedied it. I'm happy for the article to be judged on its merits, but I don't think that accusations of underhand behaviour are justified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I think nominator is clearly wrong and his arguments are misleading. Yes the initial editor seems to be someone connected with the article, but there are numerous editors on the page so clearly people who know this guy have added to it. The nominator is clearly ignoring the fact that his person has cited pretty much all his claims. Awards? He works with a Grammy award winner and looks like sang on US national TV for 23 million people less then four months ago. Qworty is wrong about WP:CREATIVE, he clearly qualifies under both categories. Coffeepusher, i don't know what sock is but it looks like several people have edited this article and I disagree with you. MikeSoyf (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC) — MikeSoyf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]
- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from working with people who actually won awards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Notability is
- delete - fails WP:42 while there are many links, there are none to significant converge by reliable third party sources. The significant coverage is from his PR firm, the "reliable" stuff is trivial mentions in by primary sources that he appeared in their charity functions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- the above comment is so misleading. The most notable sources are from the Contra Costa Times, Jweekly, and Diablo magazine. The charity articles were only there to verify that subject had indeed been there done that. This editor is so inherently biased he can't even take the time to read the articles himself. Sad. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Contra Costa Times and the trivial in passing mention) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)]
- The Contra Costa Times and the
- the above comment is so misleading. The most notable sources are from the Contra Costa Times, Jweekly, and Diablo magazine. The charity articles were only there to verify that subject had indeed been there done that. This editor is so inherently biased he can't even take the time to read the articles himself. Sad. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree with all of you, but then I would wouldn't I? Some of your points are well made and are reflected in the changes that the article has underwent, however to insinuate that something underhanded has been done from a PR firm is untrue and ridiculous. There is no WP:CREATIVE after reading what these stand for. The references that are there now are reliable, and third party based. Ngoesseringer (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)— Ngoesseringer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]
- You "have not had much to do with it after the initial writing"?? I've just reported you at AN3 for edit-warring today on it! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- a huge swath of the sources are not third party. they are sites aligned with the charities that he has performed benefits for; and they have an inherent conflict of interest in having a SOMEONE rather than a NOBODY perform for their cause.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- TRPoD you are so ignorant, it's almost laughable. You're above comment is down right maliciously uninformed and childish. You obviously have never worked with a charity or aided one. They don't have any conflict of interest in this regard, they simply reported who was apart of the evening and who helped make it a success. In the future, stick to your knowledge of wikipedia jargon, it's you primary forte Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- LOL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- actually the notability requirements are WP:BAND since he is involved in music. Does he fulfill any of those notability requirements? On my read he doesn't.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Ngoesseringer, I would like to ask why you said "George is my client, and my company Kultura PR is a reputable company" but just now claimed "to insinuate that something underhanded has been done from a PR firm is untrue and ridiculous. There is no COI in this article." Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Because he is working on his album, you are correct to question the notability for a musician. However he meets criteria number 1 and 12: his references to articles are legitimate and he had been written about and covered in reputable papers. On point 12, he was the subject of. CBS news special in the Bay Area that aired to 4 million people in 2011. I would say that qualifies as major. But one of the editors removed the only link that I could find to verify that special. Therefore you haven't seen it. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- claims that criteria have been met without providing verify the claims is not going to convince anyone to change their mind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)]
- claims that criteria have been met without providing
- the redoenofdoom above had made some very ugly and inappropriate comments in his edits. He is also clearly biased against this article based on his aggressiveness and nastiness. I believe something else is going on here and will be reporting his behavior shortly. I don't know why he has to call 'George' a nobody... That is the definition of subjective nastiness and seems highly suspicious. The reason there is no COI COffeepusher, is that there are several other editors of this article besides me. Unfortunately, whoever those people are they made mistakes when they edited the article, as seemingly all their contributions were excised by you. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Because he is working on his album, you are correct to question the notability for a musician. However he meets criteria number 1 and 12: his references to articles are legitimate and he had been written about and covered in reputable papers. On point 12, he was the subject of. CBS news special in the Bay Area that aired to 4 million people in 2011. I would say that qualifies as major. But one of the editors removed the only link that I could find to verify that special. Therefore you haven't seen it. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally coffee pusher has just officially accused me on my talk page of coordinating a campaign, which I am not doing. The admin above helped guide my writing of this article and has stated here that such accusations are underhanded and not true. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- notification and discussion can be seen User talk:Ngoesseringer#Sock warning for those who are interested. Contrary to the claim above, as of now no admin has scrutinized its validity.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I am new editor and i can see my errors. I agree with the above editors, the subject is not a star. He does not meet all the prerequisite points of musician section guidelines, but aren't his sources accurate and notable? I will hold off on voting but I'm hoping some one can clarify? Are we judging if he's a big enough deal basically?I also think it's way too heated a discussion, things need to be toned down. He tone between the primary editor and the one of the editors is far too negative. Toshkanetsuper3 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete — Per nom, per Qworty. Crap sources. If it's ]
- KeepI checked out the sources, they are not crap. Evidently plenty of that was removed based on looking at the edit history. Argument about notability is fair, but he meets some of the points. Above guy: WP:TOOSOON states: topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. The sources that exist on the page today prove all that article claims. I researched online, the article is not deceitful about the person being described. Mikeclark22 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Mikeclark22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]
- Weak Keep - I think he probably just scrapes by WP:BAND. There are problems with coi editors and personal attacks at the moment, but I think they can be overcome with a little community attention. His Facebook page has encouraged people to comment and edit which hasn't helped.Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete A quick way to determine an artist's notability is to search for something like "[Name] interview|review". There is nothing there but two pages of for now. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)]
I noticed that redpenofdoom removed a citation about the amount of people that watched his anthem for the patriots, saying they weren't watching him. But it wasn't the claim of the article. Then a later editor faulted the subjects notability because according to him no one watched the game on live TV. However, if he had seen the page before redpenofdoom subjectively removed the proof that it was seen by an enormous audience, he wouldn't have made his comment and may not have used that criteria to sway his vote. Selmaflora294 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't matter. December 16, 2012 was week 15 of the regular season, and even on a game on Sunday night, the anthem is not played on live TV (at least I've never seen that happen), so it's disingenuous to claim that 23 million people watched him sing. This was a home game for the Patriots, which means that there couldn't possibly have been more than 70,000 people in attendance, minus the folks that were buying hot dogs and beer right then. Other than the Super Bowl, the singing of the anthem is rarely broadcast, other than at the conference playoffs, and very rarely the divisional ones, as well as some of the 'special' games. Truth is, you and your associates picked the worst possible assertion to notability. If 23 million people had heard this man sing we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because his notability would have skyrocketed shortly after that, and it would be trivial to successfully prove it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Haha! This guy above me is trying to pull a fast one. George sang that anthem live in the stadium, and live on my TV screen at home. Please do not listen to this hogwash, the man did an incredible job and I'm proud he is from the Bay Area. Don't make hot air commentary. Buzzweldy (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)— Buzzweldy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The freerangefrog is COMPLETELY MISTAKEN... While there is no article in a paper about a national anthem performance, here is visual proof:
- https://vimeo.com/56063290
- And here it is again from someone else who saw it LIVE and posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOUubkE8Sk
- Read the comments section from this person... they are unaffiliated with the subject! Ngoesseringer (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, so if there isn't any verifiability. If an event can't maintain that minimum threshold for inclusion, that information can't be part of an article.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Ok, so if there isn't any
- Read the comments section from this person... they are unaffiliated with the subject! Ngoesseringer (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is not the NBC broadcast. It might be NFL GamePass on DirecTV or something else, but it's not what was broadcast by the network as part of the normal Sunday Night Football program. Two reasons: First, they never include the anthem in broadcasts unless it's a very special occasion. Like I said. Why would they do that for this game? You don't have to take my word for it, just ask any NFL fan. And if it had been some kind of tribute to Sandy Hook there would be a TON of press about it. Funny there isn't. Second, I do not hear the usual suspects narrating before or after the anthem. Listen, if 23 freakin' million people had watched your boy sing, we would not be having this conversation, period. Stop clawing at this, it's not gonna happen. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- The other thing this could be is the local broadcast, assuming the game wasn't blacked out. Local affiliates sometimes show a lot more of the game than the network. But I've never seen the anthem played on a SNF broadcast, and I don't see how this game would have been different. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am not a regular editor, nor do I care to be. But out of a need to be truthful and need to write he following:
- I watched the game last year in Walnut Creek, CA. I read about this when George posted it on Facebook and was interested.
All of the people claiming he didn't sing live to millions of people are wrong. The above editor is not only uninformed, he is also engaged in outright lies. DirectTV, which I have, broadcasts games during the day. They NEVER broadcast evening games because they are nationally televised. Secondly, the extenuating circumstances that allowed the anthem to be broadcast were the murders in Newton, CT. That was the reason for his performance being televised. He had nothin to do with it being televised, but it 100% was seen across the country because I saw in a bar watching the game with friends. So please, stop th BS and the bias. And don't even think of calling me biased because the truth it was broadcast everywhere that night. Judge George by rules applicable, but do not lie about one if the things that actually make George notable. It's just not fair. Davidblumin (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Davidblumin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The truth is that pre-game was televised, practically everyone I know in the Bay area saw the salute to the fallen, and GK singing the anthem right after it. This system of wikipedia's is bizarre, you can't just burn a subject's claims on thin air arguments, and then diminish him at the same time. This is not fair that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about on a major accomplishment (singing a the game in the first place is a tremendously complicated and difficult thing to do, live to 65,000+ people) but it was also on TV with millions watching which clearly impacted his national visibility. I hate that a group of anonymous people are tearing this artist down. Especially because he is excellent at what he is. Pustilifelya (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Pustilifelya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That is possible, but then there would be plenty of press to prove it. Apparently there isn't. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- no one is saying it didn't happen, what everyone is saying is that there isn't any rules for inclusion if it wasn't reported on in reliable sources it can't go into the article. As of now there are more reliable sources for a vigil held for an elk than there are for George Komsky singing the national anthem, which gives you an idea on how significant this event actually was. Find reliable sources and we are all happy to include it.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)]
- No one has to take my word for anything. All anyone would need to do is to come up with the media coverage that would have been generated after that. And supposedly tied somehow to remembrance of the Sandy Hook killings? There would be so much press about that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But obviously there isn't. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- no one is saying it didn't happen, what everyone is saying is that there isn't any
- That is possible, but then there would be plenty of press to prove it. Apparently there isn't. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is that pre-game was televised, practically everyone I know in the Bay area saw the salute to the fallen, and GK singing the anthem right after it. This system of wikipedia's is bizarre, you can't just burn a subject's claims on thin air arguments, and then diminish him at the same time. This is not fair that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about on a major accomplishment (singing a the game in the first place is a tremendously complicated and difficult thing to do, live to 65,000+ people) but it was also on TV with millions watching which clearly impacted his national visibility. I hate that a group of anonymous people are tearing this artist down. Especially because he is excellent at what he is. Pustilifelya (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Pustilifelya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep he does meet the requirements forWP:BAND. I just added a source that points out that 23 million people watched the performance at the game cited in the article. Which is as much if not more then most NFL playoff games. Singing at the Superbowl is an honor bestowed upon megastars. You don't have to be a megastar to be notable, and 23 million people is not an audience to sneeze at. An above editor claimed that the audience watching the game was immaterial to the article, but the editor directly above me clearly disagrees and uses this logic as a way to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Clearly these two editors are heavily subjective and using their own criteria somewhat. I would appreciate it if no one removes the source I cited about the audience count because clearly some editors are swayed by such facts, while others are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmaflora294 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Selmaflora294 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]- Selma, the gamewas broadcast watched by millions; the anthem beforehand was not. By him, he's notable; by his mother and the charities he sings for, he's notable; by musicians... he's not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Selma, the gamewas broadcast watched by millions; the anthem beforehand was not. By him, he's notable; by his mother and the charities he sings for, he's notable;
- Delete - long history of PR flack involvement, COI and s.p.a. edits, all for an WP:UPANDCOMING guy who might or might not get to be notable someday, but isn't yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Delete - fails WP:MUSIC - the available sources simply do not meet that threshold. He may one day meet notability guidelines, but he's not now meeting it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Keep. Full disclosure, I am a fan of the singer and I disagree he fails ALL notability reqs (he fails some of them though and editors are right about that). He does fulfill some of them though, and having read some of the articles there pretty legit. Honestly, there are people who have much smaller resumes with wiki articles. Marlonbrandyn (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)— Marlonbrandyn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 1) specifically which parts does he meet, and what are the sources to verify that he does meet them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)]
- 1)
- Keep Because of the way the above people have lied about the subject, and because I agree with the other keeps. He meets a few of the notability guidelines, and squeaks in on those he does meet. His accomplishments, all of them are notable. Thank you. Davidblumin (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Davidblumin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - I think he meets WP:TOOSOON but then again, some of it more then meets thresholds stated in wikipedia guidelines. I think the article can remain. Pustilifelya (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Pustilifelya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]
- Keep - I am not any way interested in swaying anybody on anything. As a Bay Area citizen I can speak about this person cause he's well known. Nothing in this space is inaccurate. If anything, the amount of naysayers here is alarming and whatever body oversees this needs to issue some sort of warning. This seems an awful lot like a gang of anonymous nobody's joining together to bring the subject down, and spitefully at that. When it all boils down, George Komsky passes Wikipedia guidelines on WP:BAND as the knowledble person above states. More significantly the organized nature of the people claiming George didn't broadcast to the US in that football game, or that he didn't help charities that he did; is SUSPICIOUS. I'm not the guy who experts in online protocol, but I know a good guy when I see him. I read the articles about George as they arrived, and I m interested in his progress. Don't tear a good guy down just because... This is an honest person, and I don't see any reason to take this piece down. Stop voting based on your syntax. Look at the quality of the article and what he's done (no to mention doing, as I have checkd out th website). Keep. Buzzweldy (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)— Buzzweldy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]
- Comment Actually, as we keep saying, all we are claiming is that there are no reliable sources that say he broadcast in the US in that football game. Find one and we will put it in. All you have to do is find one single source that says he broadcast on national television. here is a reliable source that is about an elk vigil. Right now we have more reliable sources on this page for "Big boy the elk" than we do for Komsky singing the national anthem. Now find a reliable source to back up your claims, because personal testimony doesn't count for squat here.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)]
- and even if there is such third party confirmation - who fucking cares? no one of the 25 million tuned in to watch this guy sing, and even before the kickioff, anyone who had seen had forgotten his name. this is entirely irrelevant and it has no effect on establishing notability. . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, as we keep saying, all we are claiming is that there are no
- Comment I've voted already, but need to make a point. There doesn't appear to be a source confirming millions watched at the moment he sang, but lets not be flippant: it is not insignificant for a performer to be seen by millions (regardless of the reason for their seeing him, some were certainly pleasantly surprised and became admirers afterward, while others weren't). I'm sure TRPoD understands this rather simple point, and should also be capable of grasping the the subjective nature of his comment above. Are the editors in this discussion engaged in SUBJECTIVITY or objectivity? I'm sure all would argue the latter, or at least should. But here and there the SUBJECTIVITY comes forth, as in the above editors frustration in stating his/her sole opinion that singing in front of a large audience is not notable, and then compounding his blunder by stating an even worse subjective claim: "Anyone who had seen him had forgotten his name." Does the editor also feel himself qualified to judge the quality of the singer's performance? Is he having a Simon Cowell moment? If not, how does he know that people did or did not remember the singer's name? Does he have the citations or sources to prove it? Obviously not. But he demands that article prove its points, right? And the person above TRPoD states: "we have more reliable sources on this page for "Big boy the elk" than we do for Komsky singing the national anthem" but such a statement is pointless because there don't need to be many sources, just one legitimate source confirming a point, according to many of the editors here. And the source regarding the singing is legitimate, correct? The primary detractors in this discussion are editors TRPoD and coffeepusher, and they have spent a great deal of time and effort on an article of very little significance, trying to adhere solely to wikipedia rules; yet the subjective nature of their motivations and the comments outside objectivity paint a picture of a different sort. I hope that they understand the difference. And whatever body ultimately oversees this discussion needs to take note of this tendency in these contributors. Mikeclark22 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Mikeclark22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Just to clarify, this isn't a vote. Raw counts are, for the most part, irrelevant. What matters is the the application of Wikipedia guidelines and policies towards supporting opinions. To that end, you would be much better served to explain precisely how you feel the the subject meets the notability guidelines, and precisely which sources you feel meet the Wikipediaa guideline to be a reliable source to support the claims of meeting the notability guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Just to clarify, this isn't a vote. Raw counts are, for the most part, irrelevant. What matters is the the application of Wikipedia guidelines and policies towards supporting opinions. To that end, you would be much better served to explain precisely how you feel the the subject meets the notability guidelines, and precisely which sources you feel meet the Wikipediaa guideline to be a
- Comment Thank you Barek, upon re-reading my previous vote I noticed you were right in bringing up my lack of reasoning. I am going to defer to an editor above, 'theroadislong' and agree with the analysis that George Komsky narrowly meets WP: MUSICIANhe meets it, but does not knock it out of the park. The criticism there is not without merit. I would like to see the article stay.
- Comment Thank you Barek, upon re-reading my previous vote I noticed you were right in bringing up my lack of reasoning. I am going to defer to an editor above, 'theroadislong' and agree with the analysis that George Komsky narrowly meets
- Being a newbie, I don't understand how all of the input leads to a result? Who will go through all the argumentation and decide upon it? Do we know that information? Is it one person or many? Are the more-experienced editors already aware of how this will ultimately be resolved? Also, please explain how you came to be so knowledgeable of the editing process... are there online courses or how-to guides? Can someone please help me understand better??? I feel somewhat ill-equipped to engage fully with others in this forum without being brought more thoroughly up to speed. Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- For an explanation of the deletion process, see WP:XFD. For more information on how to edit effectively here, see the big notice with lots of links left on your own talk page. Always happy to have new editors who are genuinely interested in learning how things work here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)]
- For an explanation of the deletion process, see
- Being a newbie, I don't understand how all of the input leads to a result? Who will go through all the argumentation and decide upon it? Do we know that information? Is it one person or many? Are the more-experienced editors already aware of how this will ultimately be resolved? Also, please explain how you came to be so knowledgeable of the editing process... are there online courses or how-to guides? Can someone please help me understand better??? I feel somewhat ill-equipped to engage fully with others in this forum without being brought more thoroughly up to speed. Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Question Why are visual sources so looked down upon? This subject in particular has a lot of official youTube videos that actually indicate more than what is in the article itself, but cannot be used. Why is the 'eye' test deemed so unworthy? (I can understand that some people can edit videos inauthentically, but surely that is not the only reasoning?)Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- it is not that "visual sources are looked down upon" - it is the matter of come to a conclusion that has not been made by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)]
- it is not that "visual sources are looked down upon" - it is the matter of
- Question I see I have been designated a SPA. How many edits on wikipedia must I make to lose the label? Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- To answer your question please read single purpose accounts is right here. I would start by contributing to areas of Wikipedia outside of George Komsky articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)]
- To answer your question please read
- Thanks! I read over those, and they are really helpful. Another question: where do find other articles to edit? Is there a specific place for new articles that need it? For instance how did you discover George Komsky's article?
- COMMENT/Question in reading the WP:NMUSICI discovered the following (verbatim):
- COMMENT/Question in reading the
"Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability."
Does this discussion come down to a bunch of subjective analysis on what is indeed NOTABLE? The two detracting editors believe Komsky is unworthy, while the single issue editors who all like Komsky think that he is worthy, but in need of and capable of becoming more notable. "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." That guideline creates a huge grey zone of what is notable and what isn't, and leads to a digital shouting match!. I think THE verified sources of what he's done are notable enough to warrant this article remain ON wikipedia, it certainly does not hurt wikipedia because none of the contents of the article are without official verification. So why delete? He meets guidelines, then again some he doesn't meet. There is no overwhelming evidence to warrant either position 'winning' this argument.
Repeat- "It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." Seeing as how there are no vague claims in this article, it boils down to a discussion among differing opinions on what is and is not notable. All of us can disagree on that, but none of what is written is false. And some of the sources are MAJOR sources that had journalists decide that they were NOTABLE. Why is that an anonymous band of editors on Wikipedia can claim to ascertain better the grounds of notability then a professional journalist who has to answer to a superior, fact check sources, and satisfy a readership? What gives you or anyone else here the right to make their opinion count any stronger then someone with greater experience in the matter?
Repeat- "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted"
Mikeclark22 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep After reading above comments it's obvious that there is "bias" going on in some of the comments. Although from what I am understanding this should be based on fact not personal opinion. The facts are clear, George had performed at many venues, he had contributed his time and talent to many charitable organizations.There are numerous articles in magazines and newspapers about his performance. His performance was televised and anyone who's ever been to his concerts and have heard him sing would agree that George is a very talented singer. So why not let this article be a source of inspiration to other young talented singers. In all honesty, there are many "famous people" articles that I've come across on Wikipedia that have a lot less content and reference material, but they remain published. Koolgirlygirl (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)— Koolgirlygirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- while your point 1 may be true about lots of performances, you declaration inpoint 2 about significant coverage is certainly debatable at best as to whether promotional blurbs in local papers promoting upcoming events is actually "significant coverage" or just regurgitation of PR press kits to drum up audiences. I will note that there are actually no reviews from any sources at all, other than the one penned by the PR agent about the "handsome young tenor" which has been appropriately removed as non reliable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Keep" So many of the edits from the original article seem to have an agenda to chip away at the article's content without fundamentally improving the overall integrity and communicative goal of a good article. I do a tremendous amount of editing work across several venues, and I hope the intent of the editor is to offer substantive change to the articles ability to accurately portray the facts and to evaluate the article's technical congruency with the specific domain's guidelines. I sense a lot of emotional involvement in some of the initial editors who had a very rapid and aggressive response to an article which in its original form was a very nice article; it just needed improvements on referencing and other fixes to polish up the information to better represent wiki's guidelines. I would vote to keep as I think the article itself has merit. The accomplishments of the artist here is not mundane. It is extraordinary in its scope as well as the number and magnitude of the venues this performer has been the major or often sole contributor of the talent of the venue. His solo venues sell out. ALthough I agree with many of the concerns over what constitutes notoriety, I feel like those concerns are very appropriate, but the article just needs improvements by editors in those arenas and not deletion. The are aspects of the wiki biography guidelines WP:BIO which allows for a certain amount of lattitude in setting the stage of description of a character or individual in order to depict their essence. That has been destroyed in this article instead of editing the content so it does meet standards well. The items of the article seems to just be deleted out instead of reworking into a better syntax or into a better degree of fit for demonstrating the substantial content to fulfill the various aspects of article's overall merit in those aspects. That is not to say that several of the arguments made by the articles are not well representative of wiki's rules at first glance. I think there is a very good attempt in many ways to cite the appropriate guidelines, I just do not see the effort to fix the content. There are cherry picked for only the negative and it lacks several of the notations of the guidelines that were well met by the original article which I can come back and cite individually if this article is giving the appropriate chance for honest and well intended editing if it stays. There are aspects of the notability requirements which have weak representations from a procedural aspect but the actual event or accomplishment they represent are highly notable, I think just positive reworking is all that is needed. Again, I vote to keep because there is too much direct attack on the article with what appears to be not a good balance of objectivity in a solid group of editors; and, I think the article should stay and just have editing of its original elements and not just deletion every time an element is called into question. That is, I repeat, not to say that the seasoned editors on here have not represented their arguments well. I just think there is adequate merit and notability in this artists and the events he has led demonstrating an article that needs changing, not deleting. My interest in this article was purely due to my finding this artist independent of wiki and seeking out learning about him based on the accomplishments I had discovered and how impressed I was with the artist. My need to edit here arises out of my enjoyment of editing and my awareness that there is too much here that needs to be kept and just expertly reworked and not deleted. I hope the administrators making the decisions can see through some of the undertone here and choose to keep to give a very appropriate article in this arena a chance to be a great representation of the artist and the consensus as well as the consensual knowledge base.BlackstonB (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)— BlackstonB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- removing improperly sourced and presented materials during an AfD is not only allowed it is encouraged so that those discussing the AfD can see what the reliable sourced materials actually present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Question" Would working through the "WP:MUSICIAN" dialogue a better avenue for editing content about this artist?BlackstonB (talk) 19
- 36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- if you look above, there are many occasions when I have asked those who state "WP:MUSICIAN has been met" to clarify how and provide the sources. I welcome you to take up that question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)]
- thanks for the reply. I, too, believe that there needs to be work by any contributors to get the supporting referencing and citations clearly stated for all parts in question. I do think that it can take some time for that to do be done well and that just having a proper opportunity to do that is all that I would ask for as an editor for this article, and any article for that matter. I have reviewed the contributing concerns and statements for all the editors present, and I have read all of your comments and recommendations hoping to adequately address concerns that you and other editors have brought up in requesting that the validity of sources and the ability of the elements to meet the inclusion criteria. I appreciate any comments you may have regarding your expertise in reviewing the elements of the article for appropriateness; and, I'm currently working on the research to hopefully start providing proper supportive referencing to get this article up to par with all its requirements both technically and regarding its content. I will follow all commentary questioning various aspects and will be working on providing edits and updates which may satisfy those requests for clarification. I appreciate any comments made regarding deficiencies in meeting technical and content criteria; and, I will be working along with the other editors here to get the page into a nice concise presentation. I was just concerned if the article was going to be deleted before a reasonable chance to do that had been granted. Thanks again.BlackstonB (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- the time allocated for an AfD has built into it the possibility that appropriate sourcing might be difficult to find - this case has no exceptional differences from the thousands of other articles that have gone through the process. And even after it has been completed if the result is "delete" because no sources were provided in the appropriate time, the article can still be requested to be moved from the live article space to a user sandbox for a period of several months while the search continues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- if you look above, there are many occasions when I have asked those who state "
- the biggest concern raised at the AFD is that several experiences editors have been unable to find any significant in the field of music then I would suggest you post those sources directly here. Understand that these are the same requirements that have been given to every editor who wanted to keep the page a week ago. It appears that they chose instead to filibuster which gives the impression that the sources don't exist.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)]
- Strong Delete. Fails on so many grounds relating to notability (or lack thereof) WP:COIfrom the creating editor. All editors "voting" to keep appear to have reg'd accts for the sole purpose of doing so, apparently called to action by Komsky or his agent/publicist. When (if) Mr Komsky does become notable, that will be the time for WP to have an article about him.
- This AfD has been running for over a week and I think that all arguments that might be made by either side have been made. Could an Admin have a look at this, make a decision, and close? Thanks 124.168.254.164 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2013 (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.