Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis J Musenstein

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 of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis J Musenstein

Non-notable, unverifiable, likely hoax. Apparently great musical innovator, yet nothing on google. Claimed sources pamphlet handed out at carnival (containing a detailed gossipy biography??), obscure research piece, and a 24-year-old yearbook. Weregerbil 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think the view of Jami (as we knew him)in this piece may give him more ability than he displayed. However he did exist and we well remember seeing him perform at the Black Horse in Hounslow in '79, but his combination of Lute and Reggae could only be said to have been greeted by a mixture of scepticism and sarcasm. It is however still a night we recall with affection.

• Keep This guy isn't very famous but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. He has quite a niche following and died in 1986 so it's no surprise that there are no mentions on google. But within a specific segment he made a decent contribution, and had an interesting life which deserves to be noted here. Are you saying that anyone not of the modern era and not on google as a result should be deleted?! If you go read that manuscript listed on the page there's a massive chunk about him.User: rf263

• Comment If he is admittedly not famous and there is nothing at all about him on google, then he is by very definition non-notable and therefore isn't deserving of an article. Beyond that, it strongly appears to be a hoax. IrishGuy 01:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If someone is not famous it does not mean that they are non-notable. Borodin, Lobov, and Lozovsky aren't famous, but they are still clearly notable. Such arguments should be disregarded as the rubbish they are; this issue should be judged upon facts not prejudice. Driller thriller 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I could find absolutely nothing on this person through online searches. That doesn't mean the person doesn't exist...but it does lean heavily towards non-notability. IrishGuy 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. But wow, you really must admire the creativity. --MrFizyx 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. Only contribution/edit of author. Danny Lilithborne 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2006 (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.