- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable person; obvious conflict of interest. I am also implicitly nominating the image contained in the article. Contested speedy A7. Shalom Hello 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, Very notable in his field. Callelinea 05:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I speedily deleted the article for Posse's company (Del Angel Music, eligible for a speedy under mult. criteria), his AMG profile backs up some of his claims to notability. Caknuck 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a poorly written autobiographical piece which contains no references to validate its claims. The name of the creating editor tells you all you need to know. --Greatest hits 05:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The user has now been blocked for violations of username policy. DES (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If we are going to have an article on this person, this self aggrandizing piece is not the way to start. It would be better to start from scratch. Until(1 == 2) 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this person who "is an important and influential figures (sic) in the Latin Music Industry today" doesnt even have a page on the Spanish wikipedia, and as per above.--Nobunaga24 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have done a copyedit for style and to remove many of the peacock terms. I have not made any substantive changes to content (except that I added a link to the allmusic profile, from this discussion) and nothing i did really affects notability, one way or the other. DES (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This google search returns over 1300 hits. Some of them appear to be from award ceremony pages, and some may well be useful sources, if anyone wants to look through them. DES (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say, this doesn't look like it could ever have been a proper A7 speedy -- whatever else this article does, it claims notability in spades, and the claims are not obviously and blatently bogus or trivial. DES (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I tagged it, perhaps improperly, a7. I picked it up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult page. The man may verge on notability, because the fact that it was an autobiography, even cleaned up, pushes me from neutral to delete. I do believe, as Del Angel Music was, that this page was intended for promotion. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right on the intent, in fact I am pretty sure that you are. But if the subject is in fact notable, we should convert this to a properly NPOV article IMO, rather than deleting. (I don't know the music scene well enough to judge.) In case you missed it above, the original author has been blocked for a promotional username. DES (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was already neutral on it. The man has serious WP:HOLE issues. So the COI part pushes me just ever so much toward the left, putting me from neutral to weak delete. If the article stayed as it was, it would be outright delete. I think the intent of a user is an important, albeit small, part of whether an article should exist. The Evil Spartan 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't encounterd WP:HOLE before, and I'm not sure I think much of it now. people notable within a specialized field will often fail WP:HOLE, but should have articels. if the claims in this article are accurate, and particuarlly if they were sourced, he seems to have been significantly involfved witha lot of very popular music and notable performers. That at least may make him a significant person in his field. That's my whole point. DES (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was already neutral on it. The man has serious WP:HOLE issues. So the COI part pushes me just ever so much toward the left, putting me from neutral to weak delete. If the article stayed as it was, it would be outright delete. I think the intent of a user is an important, albeit small, part of whether an article should exist. The Evil Spartan 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right on the intent, in fact I am pretty sure that you are. But if the subject is in fact notable, we should convert this to a properly NPOV article IMO, rather than deleting. (I don't know the music scene well enough to judge.) In case you missed it above, the original author has been blocked for a promotional username. DES (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If he were notable, I don't think that the fact that the article is poorly written or even autobiographical is a good reason to delete it. It is much easier for me to take a machete to an overgrown but well-sourced article than it is to write it from scratch. However, this article is not well-sourced and nothing in the article screams "notability" to me. If he is notable, he (or whoever planted this article) has not made it apparent amidst all the verbiage. -- DS1953 talk 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - although some questions about notability remain, most of the notability involves "working with" a litany of luminaries. Working with can mean everything from managing their careers, producing their records, or giving them pointers over lunch on what gestures are considered offensive in Argentina at the outset of their tour. Which is it? The burden is on the article's writer most especially in cases of self-promotion where one can assume that if a horn can be blown it would have been and assume "working with" is a helluva lot less than anything deserving of note. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 13 August 2007 (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.