Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nackman

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nackman

Delete This article appears to have been written by the subject of the article. Sperril 10:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some cleanup, but appears to meet WP:Music. Feezo (Talk) 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Vanity alone is not grounds for deletion, article plainly asserts notability under WP:MUSIC criteria (national/international touring), and nominator doesn't challenge accuracy/verifiability of article. Monicasdude 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem to be a musician of enough standing as to deserve his entry, but as it stands, it's badly done and does not quote any sources for the very upbeat assertions in the entry. Needs significant cleanup to turn it from a press release to an entry, but that is not enough for deletion, I would think... Evillan 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll clean up in a minute. Allmusic.com verifies. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cleaned it up some. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since meets WP:MUSIC, Monica, please remember WP:AGF. I don't see any evidence of bad faith here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We can disagree about whether there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, but to say there is no evidence at all is not, I think, a reasonable position. Nominator 1) stated an invalid ground for deletion and 2) ignored a clear assertion of notability satisfying WP:MUSIC. Monicasdude 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like nominator simply had a misunderstanding of the rules for vanity articles. If you prefer, replace "any evidence" with "at all strong evidence." Furthermore, such an error probably is under WP:BITE. JoshuaZ 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:BITE applies to newcomers, not to somebody who first edited about nine months ago. Isn't it also fair to ask you to apply WP:AGF to yourself and consider that some of us might actually check on that point when making a statement here?Monicasdude 15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I guess we looked at different things. You looked and saw that the user had been around for 9 months, I looked at his contribution list, of which he has a total of 150 or so edits, only about 6 of which are to deletion related pages. So for all intensive purposes Sper is a newcomer IMO. (I think I may need a wikibreak when I'm arguing over the proper application of WP:AGF and WP:BITE ah well...). JoshuaZ 15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm also sorry, but I do still consider myself a newcomer. After reading the relevent links that both of you have posted, I agree with the sentiments of those who voted to keep. I assure everyone involved that I had no prior knowledge of who Alex Nackman was, and did not act with any bad faith or malice whatsoever. I do maintain my position that persons who are intimatly involved with a biographical subject should refrain from creating articles about the subject because of the possibility of bias. I also disagree with the definition of notablility that is used under WP:MUSIC. That being said, it is an agreed upon policy that I'm now familiar with and will abide by. I was also unaware that the very act of putting an article up for a vote could be considered bad faith and I promise to use a lighter hand in the future. Upon reviewing the history of the article, I think that MusicMan5 has done a very good job in updating the article to be more in line of something approaching encyclopedic, but I still think the article reads like an advertisement for the musician. I have found reviews online that are both supportive of, and critical of the artist and the article falsely indicates that the press is only supportive of Nackman. In any case, I will not edit the article because of the accusation of bad faith on my part. -- Sperril 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author, but not the artist. I used to manage the artist, so I know him well. I certainly wasn't deliberately trying to break any rules. I hope the article can stay. I tried to correct some of the mistakes with citing sources. -MusicMan5
Keep. The notability of the subject is clearly established by the article. Carlo 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough per WP:MUSIC. I see no bad faith in the nomination. --kingboyk 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject seems important enough. But the article needs significan restructuring. --Soumyasch 13:21, 24 March 2006 (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.