Vero - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George A. Borgman/vote 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Listed as per Kevin Rector and Wile E. Heresiarch at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phil Stone. This nomination does not necessarily reflect my vote. Note the existence of redrect at Borgman, George. Uncle G 17:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
- Delete. The general level of biography articles in Wikipedia seems to require some particular notability, although it does appear particularly low for more popular areas. However, contributing to jazz magazines and appearing in an indie film that isn't finished and has not provided any evidence of a distributor doesn't seem sufficient to me. Average Earthman 18:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 19:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP - Why is this article up for deletion? George A. Borgman is a "notable in his field." He is a well known jazz writer, reviewer, and critic. He not only is a main contributor to the Mississippi Rag which is a world wide publication, but he also has been published in a slew of other jazz magazines and newspapers. These articles would not be found on the internet because they are all copyrighted, so a Google search would not reflect this persons importance in jazz criticism. However, just the circulation of the Mississippi alone, which covers the world should meet the over 5000 rule. He has been writing about jazz for over twenty years. He was voted in the top ten of reviewers some years ago in a magazine and has written liner notes for numerous traditional jazz bands. People who listen to traditional jazz, around the world, know of him and recognize his name, such as myself. People who are NOT interested in traditional jazz might not know him at all, but that doesn't mean he should be deleted! I don't know anything about punk rock, should I go aroud trying to delete all the punk rockers that are listed in Wikipedia? Arccording to Who's Who in the World, he has also written for T-J Today in which he was the New England corr. and jazz writer, he's the New Eng. corr. and contributing editor of the Miss. Rag ad has been a freelance jazz writer since the '80s. I know for a fact that some of his articles and interviews have been cited as sources in books and enyclopedias on jazz. Dwain 20:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- It's up for vfd because little of the information you mention is in the article. If it were, I doubt it would have been listed, and if changes are made I'm sure some people will consider changing their votes. Gamaliel 23:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. His claim to fame is being a writer for the Mississipi Rag, but I'm not convinced the Rag is a noteworthy subject on its own. The Mississippi Rag does not establish notability, and is just a collage of stuff from their website. It seems just mildly notable. It gets 100 Google hits (for comparison, "traditional jazz" gets 200,000). The paper may be of borderline (very borderline!) notability, but its writers certainly are not. JoaoRicardo 22:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable enough. Paul August ☎ 22:53, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a bio-stub, it can be expanded --Neigel von Teighen 22:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep above the notability bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
WeakDelete, not notable enough for me. Megan1967 00:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Keep. More deletionist madness. --Centauri 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This guy has basically been a working journalist since the early 1980's, and over 25 years or so, has written about 200 articles for jazz magazines, mostly obscure. That works out to a few articles per year. He is a member of the Jazz Journalists Association. If he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then almost everyone who has made his living as a journalist for more than a few years will be about as notable. Is that we want? We have some professions where membership more or less automatically qualifies you for a Wikipedia article. Actors, for example. Musicians, for another. Looks like we're adding popular culture journalists to the list. But not if I can help it: Delete. --BM 16:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The number is a low numerical guess. Feel free to dig up all the articles, reviews and interviews and count them if you like but I merely did an estimate based on the Mississippi Rags that I have available to me. Dwain 22:41, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be putting guesses into the Wikipedia, unless they are the guesses of someone reasonably likely to "guess" correctly, and whose guesses are at least documented. You, on the other hand, are just a login-name, and nobody knows whether your guesses are correct; indeed in this case, you are walking away from it the first time someone relies on it. How much of the rest of the "information" that you put into this article is reliable? --BM 12:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Saying over 200 is an estimate which is in fact correct I could have said of one hundred over 150 over 200 all these are correct. Now I know for a fact that these are correct as I e-mailed the operator of the Mississippi Rag. She said that Borgman had written over 200 reviews just for her paper alone and that didn't include his column or articles. She even said that he is preparing a book of late for publication. Since most people who contribute don't give any sources what-so-ever this is a well sourced article now too. Stop being so stupid BM! Dwain 17:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 18:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I told him not to be stupid, I didn't say he was stupid. There is a difference, in case you didn't realize that. Dwain 19:54, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Rationalize it however you want, but do not do it again. Consider this an official administrative warning. Gamaliel 20:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm scared. Dwain 20:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Please take note of this as well. Gamaliel 21:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Come on everybody, lighten up ;-) Gamaliel: Do you really think you are making the situation better by making threats? Or by backhandedly accusing Dwain of being "a dick"? A gentle polite request to Dwain, and to BM as well I might add, to tone down their language is the most that was needed here. Paul August ☎ 20:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Please take note of this as well. Gamaliel 21:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm scared. Dwain 20:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Rationalize it however you want, but do not do it again. Consider this an official administrative warning. Gamaliel 20:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I told him not to be stupid, I didn't say he was stupid. There is a difference, in case you didn't realize that. Dwain 19:54, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 18:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Saying over 200 is an estimate which is in fact correct I could have said of one hundred over 150 over 200 all these are correct. Now I know for a fact that these are correct as I e-mailed the operator of the Mississippi Rag. She said that Borgman had written over 200 reviews just for her paper alone and that didn't include his column or articles. She even said that he is preparing a book of late for publication. Since most people who contribute don't give any sources what-so-ever this is a well sourced article now too. Stop being so stupid BM! Dwain 17:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be putting guesses into the Wikipedia, unless they are the guesses of someone reasonably likely to "guess" correctly, and whose guesses are at least documented. You, on the other hand, are just a login-name, and nobody knows whether your guesses are correct; indeed in this case, you are walking away from it the first time someone relies on it. How much of the rest of the "information" that you put into this article is reliable? --BM 12:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I get about 200 google hits, and I can't be sure they're all him. Seems not well known enough. And I strongly suspect this article was written by his son. -R. fiend 05:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Kevin Rector 17:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Moderately notable person in moderately notable field. Exactly the sort of person there ought to be a good article about on the Web & generally isn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You know, I voted "keep", but in the grand scheme of things, I don't really care that much. But I've noticed that three of the six people who have voted delete, have speculated that the author of this article is the subject's son, and that the motivation for this article is self promotion. Both of these things may be true. But I respectfully submit that neither of these things are relevant. The only relevant thing is whether the subject of this article is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, it doesn't matter who wrote it or why. Paul August ☎ 05:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I voted to delete based on insufficient notability as well. But as for the matter of who wrote the article, it becomes somewhat important as wikipedia has a policy against self-promotion, and the difference between a person writing an article promoting himself and a close family member or friend writing the same article is pretty minor, and basically amounts to the same thing. Some anons who have been part of the campaign have done so in ways that I consider vandalism. As I see this as part of the same effort, I'm inclined to take a slightly harsher stand on this article than I otherwise might. -R. fiend 06:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -Willmcw 23:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. FroggyMoore 19:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.