Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Bolt

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. No sources given, written as a resume, clearly promotional. KrakatoaKatie 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Bolt

Ben Bolt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is blatant copyvio. He is a non-notable subject. Not one single citation. Article's creator has removed PROD tag's, repeatedly. Possible COI. ScarianTalk 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio of that page, as the bottom of it indicated that it was copied from Wikipedia, not vice versa. FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Even without copyright issues, I don't think this passes WP:N. (There certainly aren't any sources cited anyway). So unless someone wants to drastically improve it before the AfD runs out, delete. --Bfigura (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability without references, and appears to be heavily edited by "Ben Bolt" himself, which could make it spam. The359 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Comment: My name is Ben Bolt. I am the owner of the copyrights for all photos and www.benboltguitar.com. There is no legal reason to delete this article according to the rules of Wikipedia. I Ben Bolt have given permission to Wikipedia to use freely all information including all pictures. This article has been revised numerous times without any problems what so ever until now. Let us, allow Wikipedia to decide what is best in this case. Do you think that is fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbolt5 (talk • contribs) 21:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  • Coment - A few things: there's no way we can no for sure whether you are the supossed Ben Bolt or not. In addition, articles aren't deleted on Wikipedia only for the purpose that the articles remain legal. I give Wikipedia permission to make an article about myself, but I doubt it'll happen, as I'm unnotable. Thirdly and lastly, this is how Wikipedia works. An administrator, at some point, will see this and, taking note of our comments, will decide what should be done to the article. TheInfinityZero 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll assume for the sake of argument that you are Ben Bolt. But, if you did write the article (as suggested by The359), this is somewhat frowned upon under WP:COI. The logic is that there is no way to write a neutral article about yourself. But even with COI/POV issues put aside, the article probably needs to be changed to prove notability to escape deletion. See WP:BIO. --Bfigura (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, and written.... oddly. Just a mess, not salvagalbe. MarkBul 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for multiple policy violations:lacks notability, reliable sources, and smacks of self-promotion, for starters. Biruitorul 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this soruce says he is nationally known and published. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who he is known by, or if his books meet enough notability to warrant coverage of him. However, it should at least be looked into, to determine if the person meets any of the relevant notability criteria. Reliable sources as to some award, music, or other usage would be nice. If they can be found, this article might be raised to an appropriate standard. I am concerned with the subject of the article being involved, and I strongly recommend against that, however, I can't say that this is a copyvio, blatant or otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I suggest that somebody look at this person as regards Wikipedia:Notability (academics). FrozenPurpleCube 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note to point out that Ben Bolt is also a psuedonym used by Ottwell Bins [1]. I don't think the subject of the discussion has any published (or unpublished for that matter) books. --Bfigura (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, Ottwell Binns died in 1935. [2] . Amazon search [3] gets me quite a few books published in the last 10 years? I think we can agree that Ottwell Binns didn't publish any of those. Unless he's a time traveling guitarist as well as a novelist? FrozenPurpleCube 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. *inserts foot into mouth* Although a time-traveling guitarist would definitely be notable. --Bfigura (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, reads like a promo or resume. - Special-T 13:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to this source[[4]] Ben Bolt has written more than a dozen books still in print. It also states he has three best sellers, along with being a publishing visionary. Who cares? Can anybody tell me who's Mel Bay and Cherry Lane, his publishers? Where did all these no names come from? DELETE! Madamhuss Madamhuss 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madamhuss (talk • contribs) 16:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
According to Music Trades [5] it's the foremost publisher of guitar instructions in the world. A similar statement is on this NPR [6] story. Apparently, Mel Bay has taught the world. Whether or not this guitarist merits coverage, I don't know, but the company/person certainly does. FrozenPurpleCube 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oxymoron So, what we have here is a non-notable identity with a notable publisher that has bagged three best sellers? Evidently it is Mel Bay who has made the claim that Bolt is the first to use a new format for learning. That is note worthy. Why wasn't that fact stated in this article? I also looked this character up on his site. He seems to be friends with other guitarist's, David Russell and the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet. Both are grammy award winners according to Wikipedia 2004, 2005. Other friends include several international contest winners like Eduardo Fernandez? All with international carreers and many on major record labels. Bolt studied with many of the same teachers, Segovia and Carlevaro. Birds of a feather flock together? Maybe. However, I could have my picture taken with the Pope, I'm I Catholic? What is needed here is to put all the facts in context.Madamhuss 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Many major publishers of music educational material claim revolutionary new teaching techniques as part of their advertising and marketplace hype. - Special-T 14:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BEANS (all the good guidelines were already taken). Name-dropping is not the same as asserting the notability of the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Devil's advocate True however, is this no body really dropping names? The pictures were taken long before this deletion process started. Birds of a feather (never) flock together? We need to stay cool if we're going to get rid of this nonsense. If someone produces credible infomation before the 5 days, then what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.138.230 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've noticed numerous edits stating this article is being deleted as the reason for their edits. This includes anywhere in Wikipedia giving reference to this article. The five days aren't up, that is unless I can't count to five? What motive does any editor have to improve an article per Wikipedias invitation? This smells like a personal vendetta without a neutral point of view. No credible reasons are given in their edit summary. Why the harrassment? Where is Wikipedias bouncer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.138.230 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Me, too. I have no previous knowledge of Ben Bolt, but I noticed this AFD because I had seen links to this article being deleted as "nonnotable."--orlady 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • BouncerHow it works is they evaluate after the trial period. It takes 5 days.Hookworm 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Save It is my opinion this article should be saved. The new edits address previous complaints to an acceptable standard. References have been placed. When looking at all of the other classical guitarists in Wikipedia, this article may not rank as the best, but certainly not the worst. Grounds for deletion based on, "I've never heard of this guitarist, delete" is not a sound justification for deletion. For example, suppose I haven't heard of everyone in Wikipedia. Does that justify my opinion to delete or edit an article without a just cause? Of course not. Please remember as editors, Wikipedia was founded on having access to information that one source can't possibly offer or understand. This is significant. Why? Because we care, that's why! Shall we as editors not think of Wikipedia first, and ourselves second? If we're honest with each other, I know we would all nod our heads and agree. SAVE! Hookworm 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, two of the contributors to this discussion - Hookworm and Madamhuss - are brand-new users whose only edits are to this Afd page. - Special-T 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but one could say the same thing about - Markbul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.138.229 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure what your point is, since there is no such user. - Special-T 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the commenter intended to refer to User:MarkBul--orlady 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Different case, though: User:MarkBul began editing in June and has weighed in on many, many Afd discussions; the users I mentioned only created user names in the past few days, and their only edits are to this discussion. - Special-T 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You might want to check on your facts. I went to their welcome page. Wikipedia welcomed them on August 29,2007. Only two entries in their history, both on the same day they created their account(s) 8/29/07. Now, when did they recommend to delete according to this page you are now reading? Read it and weep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.138.229 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record. 156.34.219.247 has been a coward from the get-go. He is the one that is non notable. Editors beware! Can he show himself? Does he have the guts? 156.34.219.247 I have my doubts. I'm waiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.138.229 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Please do not be rude to other editors. Comment on content, not the contributor. ScarianTalk 08:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't see any edits to this page or to the article by IP 156.34.219.247. - Special-T 11:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That user did not edit the article, but deleted most of the internal links pointing to it. Review Special:Contributions/156.34.216.159 --orlady 11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your excellent detective work! - Special-T 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That user 156.34.216.159 evidently edited classical guitarists as well. The user 142.166.250.52 edited this article twice on Aug. 29 with no previous edits on any other articles, and user 74.13.114.233 edited a total of 6 times, 5 of which were edits on this article. All were done in the last week of Aug. with no previous history to their credit. All three users come from Canada.

Now concerning my credibility. Madamhuss, Hookworm, and Hookworm2 are the same. Why would I have different accounts? Because mysteriously after some comments on this article I couldn't log in again. That's why. I had to create another account twice. Is it possible to delete an editor using computers where they can't login? You bet it is! Why? Because, the majority rules, and if one wants to delete, and another wants to keep, the deleters must discredit and get rid of the keepers at all costs. Now, let's see if Hookworm2 has problems with login. I bet not, but if that should happen, I'll be back. You can count on that. You can also count on Wikipedia to get to the bottom of this charade.Hookworm2 13:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Case in point You're right it's MarkBul My mistake, they had their first two entries begining when this issue began. How convenient. The case in point. If there's no issue with copyvio and notability issues have been addressed, what are we talking about anyway? If you look at the history it's quite revealing. Bogus edits, correct undo of bogus edits back and forth until notification for delete. Putting everything into context it seems clear to me someone wants to delete Ben Bolt for personal reasons, far from neutral. Then go to the history on Classical Guitarists. That really gives it away. The article has merit. KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.138.229 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that Ben Bolt has written many music books for Mel Bay (a major player in the field of music education publications) convinces me that he's notable (see his bio and pub list at http://www.melbay.com/authors.asp?author=35). The article here was created/edited by people who don't know wikipedia conventions, but that's not a reason to completely trash it. Fix the article, but keep it.--orlady 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Peter Fleet 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you are from Canada and you think editors should login to make comments. I agree. We should always be able to login. Hookworm2 14:01, 4 September 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.