Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Ramsey

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Ramsey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Jazz musician. Unable to find any reliable, independent references. Only refs I can find are from him or from an agent. I can find records and reviews of the records. However, the records have been released by Jumping Man Records, a company co-owned by Ramsey. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bart Ramsey#Contested deletion seems to be the unknown reasons. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was published before the PROD. Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - … which is irrelevant. The reasons given are the the reasons that the article's creator had for objecting to deletion of the article. Try thinking like a human being writing an article. Someone puts a notice on the article, saying that you can object. So you object, giving reasons. Someone puts up another notice, that says that you can object, and that you can remove the notice if you do. You think "Don't be stupid. I've already told you my reasons.". And you remove the notice. In the meanwhile, your user talk page is filling up with multiple repeated notices that you can only conclude are being written by robots, and not human beings. You chalk it up to some stupid computer programming on the part of whoever designed the Wikipedia WWW site, and ignore it. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a few references from newspapers, magazines and a book. I don't have access to Highbeam or JSTOR, so I'm sure somebody else could find better refs. 64.40.54.4 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit this is not a strong keep, but the sources are decent, though not great. In addition, the musician has a decent web presence, however, trying to gleam any citiable information from that is difficult given that searching for his name (not surprisingly) mostly brings up lists of where he is/has played + cds - not the most informative hits, but the volume is suggestive of some decent importance in his music scene. Least that's my take on it. Jztinfinity (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently this process didn't appear on the log after relisting. Since we do have participation and since the relisting period still has several days to go, I've added to the July 13 log in the proper time sequence. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 17 July 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, BusterD (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not a model article by any means, but the new citations push it onto the keep pile for me.BennyHillbilly (talk) 05:56, 23 July 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.