Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Newart

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 Speedy Delete. Blanked by author. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis Newart

Curtis Newart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Please see article for deletion Immaculate Records where author states he self-published. Many more unverified claims, backed by citations that cannot be verified online or by reliable third sources, were made after nomination. Please see article history for edits. Ronbo76 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment to Administrator Please note that Ronbo76's page lists entries that he has had successfully deleted. Furthermore, his "To Do List" states: "Create a kill list of articles that I have successfully nominated." I strongly question the merit of this deletion nomination, especially since a body of work such as mine stands on its own merits. Furthermore, I believe deletion of my entries would be a decided disservice to your readership. Regarding Ronbo76's above comment, I was simply following the instructions that appeared on my page to improve the content. Furthermore, the age of some of the reference material is simply not available online and exists simply as tearsheets or programmes. However, to avoid a conflict of interest, I have removed all copyrighted materials owned by Immaculate Records and Curtis Newart and recommend both sites "Curtis Newart" and "Immaculate Records" be deleted.IMAC001 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)(Curtis Newart, Immaculate Records Owner)

This discussion was just had on the user's talk page. My userpage is a sandbox where user can compile a to-list. The only articles are those AfD that have been successfully deleted. Immaculate Records is not on that list and this user knows it because he has been to my page.

• Speedy Delete To avoid conflict of interest. All copyrighted materials owned by Curtis Newart or Immaculate Records will be removed from this entry.IMAC001 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)IMAC001 (Curtis Newart, Immaculate Records)
• Deletenon notable per nomination, some references in French all are obscure.

Daniel J. Leivick 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment removedIMAC001 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Self-promotional spam. —Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment removedIMAC001 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vanispamcruftisement which fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COI. "soon-to-be celebrity" smacks of WP:CRYSTAL, and fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply It hardly matters whether you or somebody else said it, although its usually deemed more objective if it isn't you talking about yourself. The fact is this third party doesn't think you're a celeb yet, so any pretensions to a wikipedia article based on predictions as to your impending celebrity status ARE, I believe, covered by WP:CRYSTAL. Ohconfucius 09:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for all the reasons listed above. -- Jmax- 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and WP:COI. Realkyhick 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There appears to be numerous references from solid secondary source newspapers. The article names and writers of the newspaper articles would help substantiate the newspaper references. I googled, and found some fair references to the artist on indy sites. It is nearly impossible to find web links for things that happened before 1998 (like the newspaper articles). I know because I tried in vain to find verification links for an artist that was signed to the industry giant Atlantic Records for all of the 1990s, and all I came up with was generic listings at VH1.com and MTV.com. I have no problem with verification links being added after AfD nomination, as I would expect a contributor to find verification links to prove their case. Royalbroil ^T : C 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Above I used the word "fair" in the sense of less than good, but not unacceptable. The part of the WP:BIO guideline that he may pass is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" if he was the subject of multiple newspaper articles. Royalbroil ^T : C 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The COI article, even with all of its unlinked-to references, establishes little (if any) notability. "Curtis Newart" gets only 41 unique Google hits; almost all of them are WP mirrors or MySpace, and none of them come from reliable sources. Until we can get links to articles that aren't on AOL userpages, this person fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nomination. I've talked with Ronbo over talk pages and it's obvious that this is a well-done vanity page. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to IMAC: I have withdrawn that vote and submitted a new one. My apologies for using the word vanity. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment removed
  • CommentThe use of the word "vanity" is in reference to Curtis Newton's creation of the Curtis Newton biography page as well as his company's page. Wikipedia is not a tool for self promotion, please reference WP:BIO note 3 for details. Also user IMAC001 deleting his real name and replacing it with his new user name borders on misleading, as it removes some of the evidence that this page is blatant self promotion. User IMAC001 should definitely not be involved in editing his own page as it is a conflict of interest and probably should not be involved in this dispute either. In addition google hits are a common method of determining notability, even somewhat obscure but notable people will receive hundreds or thousands of hits, while non notable people will receive only a handful. Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment RemovedIMAC001 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to indicate any significant notability. Basically self-released musician. Fan-1967 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment to CurtisWhere did you get the idea that only experts (as defined, apparently, by you) are allowed to express opinions on your notability? I really wish that the people who come to Wikipedia to promote themselves would occasionally take at least a little time to actually learn how things work here. Fan-1967 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to IMAC001: No administrator is going to delete anyone's comments, here or on any other page. Stop requesting it. You are free to reply to comments, or disagree with them but they are not going to go away. Fan-1967 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And they have to be a lot worse than "vanity" to get removed. Content is only removed from Wikipedia if it reaches the level of actionable libel, and no admin is going to view any of these comments as being actionable. Fan-1967 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment to IMAC001: I suggest you work on sourcing this article. This discussion is getting very close to the Snowball clause if you don't. Also, Don't take the word "vanity" personally. Vanity was a term that was used in Wikipedia until VERY RECENTLY to refer to doing self-referenced work. It doesn't mean that you are vain. None of us know you to make that assessment. I didn't know that the term was discouraged until just now. I hope I never see it again. Royalbroil ^T : C 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT - This article's creator is doing a cut-and-paste job on this article that makes it unreadable. Ronbo76 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This page is just an ad. Also note that the creator of the page seems to have a conflict of interest with this article. IMAC001, you should know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's right; Wikipedia is not a democracy. This isn't a vote. We are just giving our input on what we believe is to be the desired course of action with this article. If the admins don't like this article, they could get rid of it (or keep it, for that matter), regardless of what our input is. Just an FYI.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment to IMAC001 I have proof that you are violating Wikipedia policy with this quote from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. This includes promotion of companies you work for and their products, and criticism of competitors.

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest.[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Sorry IMAC001, but these are the rules. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, subject clearly fails to meet WP:MUSIC, and the incessant protesting, whining and Wikilawyering only underlines the lack of notability--notable people don't generally care that much if they have a Wikipedia article, because they're already notable! It is entirely possible (I might even say likely) that this person will be notable enough fairly soon, but until that time, this article should be deleted. -- Xtifr _tälk 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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.