Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank M (Martinez)
From 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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frank M (Martinez)[edit]
- Frank M (Martinez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real assertion of notability. Created by an editor who has no contributions elsewhere and so is likely an autobiography. Lots of padding but very little real content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree. Notability is at best marginal and much of the content is completely superfluous. (RT) (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to disagree. Some verifiable references have been added and many articles on Wikipedia are created by editors who focus on one particular article. This article definitely concerns a person of notability, substance, depth, and some longevity. There are other articles on creative individuals in Wikipedia which seem to emphasize the superficial aspects of notability over and above actual achievement. Is this what Wikipedia is evolving into- A place marker for anyone heavily connected to Pop culture. Fpm1949 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Fpm1949 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, it is evolving into that. I moved the article to Wikia, which is as sadly underused, in many categories, as WP is abused by deletionists. I suppose there is potential for a compatibility of sorts between the two. http://musicians.wikia.com/wiki/Musicians_Wiki . I just wish I had gotten to the vid game, martial arts, and to a lesser extent (because I personally don't care) soccer player articles and moved them all, too, but it is pretty much too late for that. Anarchangel (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to disagree. Some verifiable references have been added and many articles on Wikipedia are created by editors who focus on one particular article. This article definitely concerns a person of notability, substance, depth, and some longevity. There are other articles on creative individuals in Wikipedia which seem to emphasize the superficial aspects of notability over and above actual achievement. Is this what Wikipedia is evolving into- A place marker for anyone heavily connected to Pop culture. Fpm1949 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Fpm1949 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Blatant autobiography by Fpm1949 (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion. --bender235 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is also no place for deletionists to dominate and force their opinions based on assumptions with little or no evidence. I'm no inclusionist, but unsubstantiated objectivity and overconcern for the "reputation" of Wikipedia can cloud any attempt at fair mindedness. A sort of false or quasi-jurisprudence is the unfortunate outcome. Fpm1949 (talk)
- I'm much more of an inclusionist than you think, but this does not extend to autobiographies. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. --bender235 (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can readily be observed, by reading the article carefully, that the multidisciplinary artist, Frank Martinez, already has a website. Therefore, the suggestion of creating one in lieu of the Wikipedia article seems unnecessary. Also, in reading the discussion that accompanies the article, one can see that I (User:FPM1949) am not that person, but have been interested in multidisciplinary artists for many years. It seems that any editor who is attempting to delete this article should read it in its entirety, as well as the full discussion that goes with it. I still believe there is a deletionist bias at work here, but cannot prove such a thing, so will retract that assumption. Fpm1949 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Dude, it is pretty obvious that you are Frank M. But you need to realize that an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. --bender235 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can readily be observed, by reading the article carefully, that the multidisciplinary artist, Frank Martinez, already has a website. Therefore, the suggestion of creating one in lieu of the Wikipedia article seems unnecessary. Also, in reading the discussion that accompanies the article, one can see that I (User:FPM1949) am not that person, but have been interested in multidisciplinary artists for many years. It seems that any editor who is attempting to delete this article should read it in its entirety, as well as the full discussion that goes with it. I still believe there is a deletionist bias at work here, but cannot prove such a thing, so will retract that assumption. Fpm1949 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm much more of an inclusionist than you think, but this does not extend to autobiographies. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. --bender235 (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is also no place for deletionists to dominate and force their opinions based on assumptions with little or no evidence. I'm no inclusionist, but unsubstantiated objectivity and overconcern for the "reputation" of Wikipedia can cloud any attempt at fair mindedness. A sort of false or quasi-jurisprudence is the unfortunate outcome. Fpm1949 (talk)
DUDE?????? Everything seems so obvious to you, doesn't it? This no longer seems to be a discussion, but rather, a personal attack, lacking in objectivity, and above all, a breach of "discussion guidelines." Valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Also, commenting on people, rather than the article, is disruptive and unproductive. Fpm1949
- I already commented on the article. None notable + self-promotion = delete. --bender235 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
₵ Some notability has been established through secondary references and self-promotion is an assumption, and a false one at that. Fpm1949 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.161.58 (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's published, he's been published about, therefore notable. I don't think you have any solid proof about who wrote the article and even if you're right, it is a fallacy to say that someone close to a subject can't write a good article on a subject. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No proof for WP:AUTO? I guess anyone has access to "personal letters addressed to Frank Martinez", right? And by the way: where has he been published about? --bender235 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanispam. My favorite reference is "Villa Lobos, Arminda, a personal letter addressed to Frank Martinez, 1976." Drmies (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I looked through all the references and they don't appear notable. One is a grainy jpeg of a gallery program uploaded by Frank Martinez himself according the Wikimedia Commons. Another one is a link his self-published CD Baby album with direction to look at a review posted at the bottom of the page. This review that could have been written by anyone including the subject himself since all you have to do is log in to write a review. This all appears to be a vanity project. Warfieldian (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable, independent evidence of notability has been found. (RT) (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Edidudevanitas. This is a portmanteau which represents all of the self righteous editors who replace true notable content (TNC) with defiant editorial judgement. I have not received one ounce of true editorial help to clean up or make this article better. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Consensus) Also, he (Frank Martinez) has been published in the New Orleans Times Picayune by Frank Gagnard (Sept. 13, 1979) as well as by Louis Nicholas, The Tennessean, 3-Instrument Performance Shows Talent, 1975 as well as numerous other publications.Fpm1949 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 4 March 2011 (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.