Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Komsky

Add links
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. There is a clear consensus to delete, once the socks are scrapped. It should be noted also that the "keep" votes don't actually present evidence for passing various notability criteria and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky[edit]

George Komsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG -- no awards etc., no substantial coverage. The article is constructed out of air, using press releases and generic websites -- and the main point is there's nothing else to use. Do have a look at the history -- quite a collection of socks, for an article less than a week old, and obviously an intensive effort by a PR firm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious socks and clear conflict of interest violation. Main contributor's user name points to the owner of George Komsky's PR firm and author of several sources within the article. That wouldn't be a reason for deletion, except that her client doesn't fulfill any of the notability requirements as noted by nominator.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fairness to the main contributor, there has been no attempt to hide the fact that he/she represents Komsky, nor has the use of alternative names been used deviously, as far as I can see. Commercial involvement doesn't automatically preclude article creation, which is why I responded to a request to improve the article having previously speedied it. I'm happy for the article to be judged on its merits, but I don't think that accusations of underhand behaviour are justified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think nominator is clearly wrong and his arguments are misleading. Yes the initial editor seems to be someone connected with the article, but there are numerous editors on the page so clearly people who know this guy have added to it. The nominator is clearly ignoring the fact that his person has cited pretty much all his claims. Awards? He works with a Grammy award winner and looks like sang on US national TV for 23 million people less then four months ago. Qworty is wrong about WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE, he clearly qualifies under both categories. Coffeepusher, i don't know what sock is but it looks like several people have edited this article and I disagree with you. MikeSoyf (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC) — MikeSoyf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from working with people who actually won awards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - fails WP:42 while there are many links, there are none to significant converge by reliable third party sources. The significant coverage is from his PR firm, the "reliable" stuff is trivial mentions in by primary sources that he appeared in their charity functions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the above comment is so misleading. The most notable sources are from the Contra Costa Times, Jweekly, and Diablo magazine. The charity articles were only there to verify that subject had indeed been there done that. This editor is so inherently biased he can't even take the time to read the articles himself. Sad. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Contra Costa Times and the Diablo Magazine of the East Bay are local papers doing puff pieces about "local boy on the verge of making it big" stories. The Jweekly is a local Jewish newspaper promoting a local Jewish fundraising event that gives a little bit of promotional hype to the performer, (unless you are talking about this one which is poster child for trivial in passing mention) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with all of you, but then I would wouldn't I? Some of your points are well made and are reflected in the changes that the article has underwent, however to insinuate that something underhanded has been done from a PR firm is untrue and ridiculous. There is no COI in this article, although I started it I have not had much to do with it after the initial writing (which was guided by an admin). The Notability questions are inaccurate based on the accomplishments of the subject. He tours on major stages across the world (SF Symphony among them) and all claims currently in the article are legitimate and valid, which you've all read and seemingly scoffed at. He does not fail WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE after reading what these stand for. The references that are there now are reliable, and third party based. Ngoesseringer (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)— Ngoesseringer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You "have not had much to do with it after the initial writing"?? I've just reported you at AN3 for edit-warring today on it! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a huge swath of the sources are not third party. they are sites aligned with the charities that he has performed benefits for; and they have an inherent conflict of interest in having a SOMEONE rather than a NOBODY perform for their cause.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRPoD you are so ignorant, it's almost laughable. You're above comment is down right maliciously uninformed and childish. You obviously have never worked with a charity or aided one. They don't have any conflict of interest in this regard, they simply reported who was apart of the evening and who helped make it a success. In the future, stick to your knowledge of wikipedia jargon, it's you primary forte Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually the notability requirements are WP:BAND since he is involved in music. Does he fulfill any of those notability requirements? On my read he doesn't.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ngoesseringer, I would like to ask why you said "George is my client, and my company Kultura PR is a reputable company" but just now claimed "to insinuate that something underhanded has been done from a PR firm is untrue and ridiculous. There is no COI in this article." Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is working on his album, you are correct to question the notability for a musician. However he meets criteria number 1 and 12: his references to articles are legitimate and he had been written about and covered in reputable papers. On point 12, he was the subject of. CBS news special in the Bay Area that aired to 4 million people in 2011. I would say that qualifies as major. But one of the editors removed the only link that I could find to verify that special. Therefore you haven't seen it. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
claims that criteria have been met without providing reliable sources to verify the claims is not going to convince anyone to change their mind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the redoenofdoom above had made some very ugly and inappropriate comments in his edits. He is also clearly biased against this article based on his aggressiveness and nastiness. I believe something else is going on here and will be reporting his behavior shortly. I don't know why he has to call 'George' a nobody... That is the definition of subjective nastiness and seems highly suspicious. The reason there is no COI COffeepusher, is that there are several other editors of this article besides me. Unfortunately, whoever those people are they made mistakes when they edited the article, as seemingly all their contributions were excised by you. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally coffee pusher has just officially accused me on my talk page of coordinating a campaign, which I am not doing. The admin above helped guide my writing of this article and has stated here that such accusations are underhanded and not true. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notification and discussion can be seen User talk:Ngoesseringer#Sock warning for those who are interested. Contrary to the claim above, as of now no admin has scrutinized its validity.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am new editor and i can see my errors. I agree with the above editors, the subject is not a star. He does not meet all the prerequisite points of musician section guidelines, but aren't his sources accurate and notable? I will hold off on voting but I'm hoping some one can clarify? Are we judging if he's a big enough deal basically?
I also think it's way too heated a discussion, things need to be toned down. He tone between the primary editor and the one of the editors is far too negative. Toshkanetsuper3 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nom, per Qworty. Crap sources. If it's WP:TOOSOON, it can come back later. JFHJr (㊟) 03:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI checked out the sources, they are not crap. Evidently plenty of that was removed based on looking at the edit history. Argument about notability is fair, but he meets some of the points. Above guy: WP:TOOSOON states: topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. The sources that exist on the page today prove all that article claims. I researched online, the article is not deceitful about the person being described. Mikeclark22 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Mikeclark22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Keep - I think he probably just scrapes by WP:GNG and WP:BAND. There are problems with coi editors and personal attacks at the moment, but I think they can be overcome with a little community attention. His Facebook page has encouraged people to comment and edit which hasn't helped.Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick way to determine an artist's notability is to search for something like "[Name] interview|review". There is nothing there but two pages of non-reliable sources, local events and self-generated content, including press releases. A common problem with non-notable subjects is the assertion of notability by association, which this bio falls into fairly quickly. Everything else is low profile at best. I would consider singing the national anthem at an NFL game as notable, if it had been at least a playoff event, or even better the SuperBowl. For Sunday Night Football games, the anthem and most of the pre-game activities are not even part of the TV broadcast. There is a problematic reference overload here as well, another indication of grasping for notability. And most of those sources aren't particularly reliable. While it's always distasteful to see someone announcing that they successfully inserted their promotional material into Wikipedia, and I have serious problems with the attitude of the PR person here, COI and all that are never really valid reasons to delete an article. Ultimately, this person fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and that's all that matters. At least for now. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that redpenofdoom removed a citation about the amount of people that watched his anthem for the patriots, saying they weren't watching him. But it wasn't the claim of the article. Then a later editor faulted the subjects notability because according to him no one watched the game on live TV. However, if he had seen the page before redpenofdoom subjectively removed the proof that it was seen by an enormous audience, he wouldn't have made his comment and may not have used that criteria to sway his vote. Selmaflora294 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It doesn't matter. December 16, 2012 was week 15 of the regular season, and even on a game on Sunday night, the anthem is not played on live TV (at least I've never seen that happen), so it's disingenuous to claim that 23 million people watched him sing. This was a home game for the Patriots, which means that there couldn't possibly have been more than 70,000 people in attendance, minus the folks that were buying hot dogs and beer right then. Other than the Super Bowl, the singing of the anthem is rarely broadcast, other than at the conference playoffs, and very rarely the divisional ones, as well as some of the 'special' games. Truth is, you and your associates picked the worst possible assertion to notability. If 23 million people had heard this man sing we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because his notability would have skyrocketed shortly after that, and it would be trivial to successfully prove it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! This guy above me is trying to pull a fast one. George sang that anthem live in the stadium, and live on my TV screen at home. Please do not listen to this hogwash, the man did an incredible job and I'm proud he is from the Bay Area. Don't make hot air commentary. Buzzweldy (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)— Buzzweldy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The freerangefrog is COMPLETELY MISTAKEN... While there is no article in a paper about a national anthem performance, here is visual proof:
https://vimeo.com/56063290
And here it is again from someone else who saw it LIVE and posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOUubkE8Sk
Read the comments section from this person... they are unaffiliated with the subject! Ngoesseringer (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if there isn't any "articles in a paper about a national anthem performance" then it can't be part of the article. The minimum threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is reliability and verifiability. If an event can't maintain that minimum threshold for inclusion, that information can't be part of an article.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not the NBC broadcast. It might be NFL GamePass on DirecTV or something else, but it's not what was broadcast by the network as part of the normal Sunday Night Football program. Two reasons: First, they never include the anthem in broadcasts unless it's a very special occasion. Like I said. Why would they do that for this game? You don't have to take my word for it, just ask any NFL fan. And if it had been some kind of tribute to Sandy Hook there would be a TON of press about it. Funny there isn't. Second, I do not hear the usual suspects narrating before or after the anthem. Listen, if 23 freakin' million people had watched your boy sing, we would not be having this conversation, period. Stop clawing at this, it's not gonna happen. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing this could be is the local broadcast, assuming the game wasn't blacked out. Local affiliates sometimes show a lot more of the game than the network. But I've never seen the anthem played on a SNF broadcast, and I don't see how this game would have been different. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a regular editor, nor do I care to be. But out of a need to be truthful and need to write he following:
I watched the game last year in Walnut Creek, CA. I read about this when George posted it on Facebook and was interested.

All of the people claiming he didn't sing live to millions of people are wrong. The above editor is not only uninformed, he is also engaged in outright lies. DirectTV, which I have, broadcasts games during the day. They NEVER broadcast evening games because they are nationally televised. Secondly, the extenuating circumstances that allowed the anthem to be broadcast were the murders in Newton, CT. That was the reason for his performance being televised. He had nothin to do with it being televised, but it 100% was seen across the country because I saw in a bar watching the game with friends. So please, stop th BS and the bias. And don't even think of calling me biased because the truth it was broadcast everywhere that night. Judge George by rules applicable, but do not lie about one if the things that actually make George notable. It's just not fair. Davidblumin (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Davidblumin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The truth is that pre-game was televised, practically everyone I know in the Bay area saw the salute to the fallen, and GK singing the anthem right after it. This system of wikipedia's is bizarre, you can't just burn a subject's claims on thin air arguments, and then diminish him at the same time. This is not fair that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about on a major accomplishment (singing a the game in the first place is a tremendously complicated and difficult thing to do, live to 65,000+ people) but it was also on TV with millions watching which clearly impacted his national visibility. I hate that a group of anonymous people are tearing this artist down. Especially because he is excellent at what he is. Pustilifelya (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Pustilifelya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That is possible, but then there would be plenty of press to prove it. Apparently there isn't. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no one is saying it didn't happen, what everyone is saying is that there isn't any reliable sources which covered it. It happened, we are all saying it happened, but according to wikipedia's rules for inclusion if it wasn't reported on in reliable sources it can't go into the article. As of now there are more reliable sources for a vigil held for an elk than there are for George Komsky singing the national anthem, which gives you an idea on how significant this event actually was. Find reliable sources and we are all happy to include it.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has to take my word for anything. All anyone would need to do is to come up with the media coverage that would have been generated after that. And supposedly tied somehow to remembrance of the Sandy Hook killings? There would be so much press about that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But obviously there isn't. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he does meet the requirements for WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I just added a source that points out that 23 million people watched the performance at the game cited in the article. Which is as much if not more then most NFL playoff games. Singing at the Superbowl is an honor bestowed upon megastars. You don't have to be a megastar to be notable, and 23 million people is not an audience to sneeze at. An above editor claimed that the audience watching the game was immaterial to the article, but the editor directly above me clearly disagrees and uses this logic as a way to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Clearly these two editors are heavily subjective and using their own criteria somewhat. I would appreciate it if no one removes the source I cited about the audience count because clearly some editors are swayed by such facts, while others are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selmaflora294 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Selmaflora294 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep - I am not any way interested in swaying anybody on anything. As a Bay Area citizen I can speak about this person cause he's well known. Nothing in this space is inaccurate. If anything, the amount of naysayers here is alarming and whatever body oversees this needs to issue some sort of warning. This seems an awful lot like a gang of anonymous nobody's joining together to bring the subject down, and spitefully at that. When it all boils down, George Komsky passes Wikipedia guidelines on WP:GNG and WP:BAND as the knowledble person above states. More significantly the organized nature of the people claiming George didn't broadcast to the US in that football game, or that he didn't help charities that he did; is SUSPICIOUS. I'm not the guy who experts in online protocol, but I know a good guy when I see him. I read the articles about George as they arrived, and I m interested in his progress. Don't tear a good guy down just because... This is an honest person, and I don't see any reason to take this piece down. Stop voting based on your syntax. Look at the quality of the article and what he's done (no to mention doing, as I have checkd out th website). Keep. Buzzweldy (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)— Buzzweldy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Actually, as we keep saying, all we are claiming is that there are no reliable sources that say he broadcast in the US in that football game. Find one and we will put it in. All you have to do is find one single source that says he broadcast on national television. here is a reliable source that is about an elk vigil. Right now we have more reliable sources on this page for "Big boy the elk" than we do for Komsky singing the national anthem. Now find a reliable source to back up your claims, because personal testimony doesn't count for squat here.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • and even if there is such third party confirmation - who fucking cares? no one of the 25 million tuned in to watch this guy sing, and even before the kickioff, anyone who had seen had forgotten his name. this is entirely irrelevant and it has no effect on establishing notability. . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've voted already, but need to make a point. There doesn't appear to be a source confirming millions watched at the moment he sang, but lets not be flippant: it is not insignificant for a performer to be seen by millions (regardless of the reason for their seeing him, some were certainly pleasantly surprised and became admirers afterward, while others weren't). I'm sure TRPoD understands this rather simple point, and should also be capable of grasping the the subjective nature of his comment above. Are the editors in this discussion engaged in SUBJECTIVITY or objectivity? I'm sure all would argue the latter, or at least should. But here and there the SUBJECTIVITY comes forth, as in the above editors frustration in stating his/her sole opinion that singing in front of a large audience is not notable, and then compounding his blunder by stating an even worse subjective claim: "Anyone who had seen him had forgotten his name." Does the editor also feel himself qualified to judge the quality of the singer's performance? Is he having a Simon Cowell moment? If not, how does he know that people did or did not remember the singer's name? Does he have the citations or sources to prove it? Obviously not. But he demands that article prove its points, right? And the person above TRPoD states: "we have more reliable sources on this page for "Big boy the elk" than we do for Komsky singing the national anthem" but such a statement is pointless because there don't need to be many sources, just one legitimate source confirming a point, according to many of the editors here. And the source regarding the singing is legitimate, correct? The primary detractors in this discussion are editors TRPoD and coffeepusher, and they have spent a great deal of time and effort on an article of very little significance, trying to adhere solely to wikipedia rules; yet the subjective nature of their motivations and the comments outside objectivity paint a picture of a different sort. I hope that they understand the difference. And whatever body ultimately oversees this discussion needs to take note of this tendency in these contributors. Mikeclark22 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Mikeclark22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to clarify, this isn't a vote. Raw counts are, for the most part, irrelevant. What matters is the the application of Wikipedia guidelines and policies towards supporting opinions. To that end, you would be much better served to explain precisely how you feel the the subject meets the notability guidelines, and precisely which sources you feel meet the Wikipediaa guideline to be a reliable source to support the claims of meeting the notability guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you Barek, upon re-reading my previous vote I noticed you were right in bringing up my lack of reasoning. I am going to defer to an editor above, 'theroadislong' and agree with the analysis that George Komsky narrowly meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Whatever problems that exist can be monitored with community attention. I also think that after reading some of WP: MUSICIAN he meets it, but does not knock it out of the park. The criticism there is not without merit. I would like to see the article stay.
Being a newbie, I don't understand how all of the input leads to a result? Who will go through all the argumentation and decide upon it? Do we know that information? Is it one person or many? Are the more-experienced editors already aware of how this will ultimately be resolved? Also, please explain how you came to be so knowledgeable of the editing process... are there online courses or how-to guides? Can someone please help me understand better??? I feel somewhat ill-equipped to engage fully with others in this forum without being brought more thoroughly up to speed. Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For an explanation of the deletion process, see WP:XFD. For more information on how to edit effectively here, see the big notice with lots of links left on your own talk page. Always happy to have new editors who are genuinely interested in learning how things work here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why are visual sources so looked down upon? This subject in particular has a lot of official youTube videos that actually indicate more than what is in the article itself, but cannot be used. Why is the 'eye' test deemed so unworthy? (I can understand that some people can edit videos inauthentically, but surely that is not the only reasoning?)Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is not that "visual sources are looked down upon" - it is the matter of verifying publication in a reliably published source and the use of primary sources to come to a conclusion that has not been made by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I see I have been designated a SPA. How many edits on wikipedia must I make to lose the label? Mikeclark22 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question please read WP:V and WP:RS. The guidelines for single purpose accounts is right here. I would start by contributing to areas of Wikipedia outside of George Komsky articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I read over those, and they are really helpful. Another question: where do find other articles to edit? Is there a specific place for new articles that need it? For instance how did you discover George Komsky's article?
    • COMMENT/Question in reading the WP:NMUSIC I discovered the following (verbatim):

"Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability."

Does this discussion come down to a bunch of subjective analysis on what is indeed NOTABLE? The two detracting editors believe Komsky is unworthy, while the single issue editors who all like Komsky think that he is worthy, but in need of and capable of becoming more notable. "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." That guideline creates a huge grey zone of what is notable and what isn't, and leads to a digital shouting match!. I think THE verified sources of what he's done are notable enough to warrant this article remain ON wikipedia, it certainly does not hurt wikipedia because none of the contents of the article are without official verification. So why delete? He meets guidelines, then again some he doesn't meet. There is no overwhelming evidence to warrant either position 'winning' this argument.

Repeat- "It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." Seeing as how there are no vague claims in this article, it boils down to a discussion among differing opinions on what is and is not notable. All of us can disagree on that, but none of what is written is false. And some of the sources are MAJOR sources that had journalists decide that they were NOTABLE. Why is that an anonymous band of editors on Wikipedia can claim to ascertain better the grounds of notability then a professional journalist who has to answer to a superior, fact check sources, and satisfy a readership? What gives you or anyone else here the right to make their opinion count any stronger then someone with greater experience in the matter?

Repeat- "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted"

Mikeclark22 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After reading above comments it's obvious that there is "bias" going on in some of the comments. Although from what I am understanding this should be based on fact not personal opinion. The facts are clear, George had performed at many venues, he had contributed his time and talent to many charitable organizations.There are numerous articles in magazines and newspapers about his performance. His performance was televised and anyone who's ever been to his concerts and have heard him sing would agree that George is a very talented singer. So why not let this article be a source of inspiration to other young talented singers. In all honesty, there are many "famous people" articles that I've come across on Wikipedia that have a lot less content and reference material, but they remain published. Koolgirlygirl (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)— Koolgirlygirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • while your point 1 may be true about lots of performances, you declaration inpoint 2 about significant coverage is certainly debatable at best as to whether promotional blurbs in local papers promoting upcoming events is actually "significant coverage" or just regurgitation of PR press kits to drum up audiences. I will note that there are actually no reviews from any sources at all, other than the one penned by the PR agent about the "handsome young tenor" which has been appropriately removed as non reliable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" So many of the edits from the original article seem to have an agenda to chip away at the article's content without fundamentally improving the overall integrity and communicative goal of a good article. I do a tremendous amount of editing work across several venues, and I hope the intent of the editor is to offer substantive change to the articles ability to accurately portray the facts and to evaluate the article's technical congruency with the specific domain's guidelines. I sense a lot of emotional involvement in some of the initial editors who had a very rapid and aggressive response to an article which in its original form was a very nice article; it just needed improvements on referencing and other fixes to polish up the information to better represent wiki's guidelines. I would vote to keep as I think the article itself has merit. The accomplishments of the artist here is not mundane. It is extraordinary in its scope as well as the number and magnitude of the venues this performer has been the major or often sole contributor of the talent of the venue. His solo venues sell out. ALthough I agree with many of the concerns over what constitutes notoriety, I feel like those concerns are very appropriate, but the article just needs improvements by editors in those arenas and not deletion. The are aspects of the wiki biography guidelines WP:BIO which allows for a certain amount of lattitude in setting the stage of description of a character or individual in order to depict their essence. That has been destroyed in this article instead of editing the content so it does meet standards well. The items of the article seems to just be deleted out instead of reworking into a better syntax or into a better degree of fit for demonstrating the substantial content to fulfill the various aspects of article's overall merit in those aspects. That is not to say that several of the arguments made by the articles are not well representative of wiki's rules at first glance. I think there is a very good attempt in many ways to cite the appropriate guidelines, I just do not see the effort to fix the content. There are cherry picked for only the negative and it lacks several of the notations of the guidelines that were well met by the original article which I can come back and cite individually if this article is giving the appropriate chance for honest and well intended editing if it stays. There are aspects of the notability requirements which have weak representations from a procedural aspect but the actual event or accomplishment they represent are highly notable, I think just positive reworking is all that is needed. Again, I vote to keep because there is too much direct attack on the article with what appears to be not a good balance of objectivity in a solid group of editors; and, I think the article should stay and just have editing of its original elements and not just deletion every time an element is called into question. That is, I repeat, not to say that the seasoned editors on here have not represented their arguments well. I just think there is adequate merit and notability in this artists and the events he has led demonstrating an article that needs changing, not deleting. My interest in this article was purely due to my finding this artist independent of wiki and seeking out learning about him based on the accomplishments I had discovered and how impressed I was with the artist. My need to edit here arises out of my enjoyment of editing and my awareness that there is too much here that needs to be kept and just expertly reworked and not deleted. I hope the administrators making the decisions can see through some of the undertone here and choose to keep to give a very appropriate article in this arena a chance to be a great representation of the artist and the consensus as well as the consensual knowledge base.BlackstonB (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)— BlackstonB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
removing improperly sourced and presented materials during an AfD is not only allowed it is encouraged so that those discussing the AfD can see what the reliable sourced materials actually present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Question" Would working through the "WP:MUSICIAN" dialogue a better avenue for editing content about this artist?BlackstonB (talk) 19
  • 36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
if you look above, there are many occasions when I have asked those who state "WP:MUSICIAN has been met" to clarify how and provide the sources. I welcome you to take up that question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply. I, too, believe that there needs to be work by any contributors to get the supporting referencing and citations clearly stated for all parts in question. I do think that it can take some time for that to do be done well and that just having a proper opportunity to do that is all that I would ask for as an editor for this article, and any article for that matter. I have reviewed the contributing concerns and statements for all the editors present, and I have read all of your comments and recommendations hoping to adequately address concerns that you and other editors have brought up in requesting that the validity of sources and the ability of the elements to meet the inclusion criteria. I appreciate any comments you may have regarding your expertise in reviewing the elements of the article for appropriateness; and, I'm currently working on the research to hopefully start providing proper supportive referencing to get this article up to par with all its requirements both technically and regarding its content. I will follow all commentary questioning various aspects and will be working on providing edits and updates which may satisfy those requests for clarification. I appreciate any comments made regarding deficiencies in meeting technical and content criteria; and, I will be working along with the other editors here to get the page into a nice concise presentation. I was just concerned if the article was going to be deleted before a reasonable chance to do that had been granted. Thanks again.BlackstonB (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the time allocated for an AfD has built into it the possibility that appropriate sourcing might be difficult to find - this case has no exceptional differences from the thousands of other articles that have gone through the process. And even after it has been completed if the result is "delete" because no sources were provided in the appropriate time, the article can still be requested to be moved from the live article space to a user sandbox for a period of several months while the search continues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the biggest concern raised at the AFD is that several experiences editors have been unable to find any WP:RS which fulfill the notability requirements. It hasn't helped the article that many of the new contributors have spent their time on this page focused on the validity of a single sentence (against the consensus of several experienced editors, and without really understanding why the sentence was not valid) rather than finding those reliable sources which would have helped. Now if you can find sources which actually fulfill Wikipedia requirements AND demonstrate that the subject is significant in the field of music then I would suggest you post those sources directly here. Understand that these are the same requirements that have been given to every editor who wanted to keep the page a week ago. It appears that they chose instead to filibuster which gives the impression that the sources don't exist.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fails on so many grounds relating to notability (or lack thereof) WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, and WP:ENTERTAINER. If WP:RS existed, they would have been found by now. Also, massive WP:COI from the creating editor. All editors "voting" to keep appear to have reg'd accts for the sole purpose of doing so, apparently called to action by Komsky or his agent/publicist. When (if) Mr Komsky does become notable, that will be the time for WP to have an article about him.
This AfD has been running for over a week and I think that all arguments that might be made by either side have been made. Could an Admin have a look at this, make a decision, and close? Thanks 124.168.254.164 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Komsky&oldid=1137875611"