Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Flannery

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. The article has undergone drastic change from the time it was originally nominated for deletion, so much that no consensus can possibly be determined from this debate. No consensus, with leave to speedy renominate if anyone feels it necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Flannery

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

1. Article does not contain any 3rd party references to indicate notability. 2. I've done a google search to attempt to find references, top 4 or 5 results aren't even about this artist, rest are dubious my space/facebook/twitter pages. Not a good sign of notability. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single independent reliable source is cited, and there seems to be no evidence elsewhere of notability.
    talk) 08:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I might be guilty of failing
WP:GOODFAITH but these edits look suspicious. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment And another new user with interest only in Mr Flannery > Special:Contributions/Wildcatcardinal
Comment You seem to have a particular attraction to him as well. I just added a footnote. I trust this meets with your approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcatcardinal (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does my google search show his songaweek.com website as the 2nd result? All the footnotes look valid to these eyes. You are extemely guilty of failing
WP:GOODFAITHWildcatcardinal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.244.194 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That isn't a valid reference. It's a
WP:NOTABLE GimliDotNet (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Weak Keep He has a strong supporter in Stanton Swihart of
    Allmusic[1][2][3][4][5] and an article in NEPA magazine Connections (p. 32).[6] Probably needs one more strong source. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The article has a referenced quote from
    Allmusic calling the subject "one of the most gifted songwriters to emerge at the turn of the century", so I don't know where you got "Article does not contain any 3rd party references to indicate notability." The article is not in very good shape, but there's enough there to suggest notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment The all music link was added days after the AFD was raised. Also I'd question if one review on AllMusic is enough to establish notability? According to
WP:BASIC you need multiple sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Never presume an editor is too stupid to check the page history, which shows the reference was already there when you opened the AfD: [7] Not that it would make any difference when the reference was added (indeed, Wikipedia encourages editors to address the issues raised in an AfD by editing the article: WP:Guide to deletion), but the fact that you're resorting to lying about the article's history makes me doubt even more whether there's any reason to delete it. Finally, no one said that "one review on AllMusic is enough to establish notability". As I've already implied, the article contains several claims to notability which can, in all likelihood, be supported with further references from reliable independent sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine mistake on my part. No dishonesty intended. Just like to add with over 5000 edits this is the first time I have been accused of lying to get my point across. I am mortified :( GimliDotNet (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk | contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Flannery&oldid=1083679799"