Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lior navok

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 ... and much improved during the discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lior navok

Contested prod. Apart for possible notability issues, the original author, User:Liornavok, which I presume is the Lior navok in question, has claimed ownership of copyright over the text (possible implicit ownership of the article itself?) -- and that is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lior navok has been moved to Lior Navok -- I presume this AfD discussion still applies? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep if he can reliably source the awards and fix the copyright issues, it's reasonably notable and worthwhile despite the admitted COI. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno If the article's claims are true, we should certainly keep, but if the entire article is copyrighted, we have no choice but to delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into this, the more it seems that he wrote this article for Wikipedia, then tried to put his own copyright on the Wikipedia page, in order to claim ownership. I think this may just be a huge misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, but probably isn't an actual copyright violation. I have warned the author about conflict of interest editing and I see the copyright issue is already under discussion on his and the article's talk pages. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Copyvio material has now been removed, and a new lead written. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent cites. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are independent citations now, but in any case that's hardly a reason to delete an article unless none can be found. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - even if someone writes just 1 line, it's better than a copyvio. The subject is notable however, lots of independent sites mentioning him, a sufficient amount of accomplishment, and there are enough Google hits to clearly display that he isn't an average NN Joe. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. (The article is now reduced to one descriptive line + the list of his compostions.) I have added some refs - he is notable. In addition to the refs I've added to the article, see Google News Archives. [1] I have a subscription to Highbeam Research and can supply the articles that confirm his various awards. Most of them are from The Jerusalem Post. The autobiography bit was ill-advised, but that's no reason to delete the article. I suspect the addition of the copyright info in the edit summary was the author trying to say it was OK to use the info from his web site because he owned the copyright, not an attempt to claim ownership of the article. (He's obviously new to Wikipedia) Voceditenore (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've re-expanded the article slightly, this time with refs. Voceditenore (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (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.