Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Carama (2nd nomination)
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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fred Carama
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Carama
Very Strong Delete and protect This article clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, and WP:PROFTEST. Assertions of notability are made in the article but are not cited although they don't even establish notability based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability anyway. Anonymous user who contributes to this article refuses to cite his sources and reverts requests for neccesary citations. Article in Origional research about a non-notable prof. Just because he has attended Julliard does not make him notable by the standards for prof notability set in WP:PROFTEST. This is a vanity article being used for the promotion of this individual who teaches privately and his students. Strothra 06:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please also note that the link has been taken down from the website where it was once stored. There is now absolutely no authorative source suggesting any possible notability. --Strothra 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. He does teach at Julliard and is referred to in this article as a noted voice teacher in this article [1]. However, none of the people he has taught have articles. Could be persuaded to vote keep if more verifiable sources provided. Capitalistroadster 07:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and protect. Lindstrom, apparently the most notable of his students, currently describes herself as someone who "might get two [singing] jobs a year". That said, a quick google search suggests that she may be on the way to becoming notable. Even so, I doubt Fred is worth more than a line in her page, if that. Even with the OR, it doesn't add up to much. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete there is 0% citation or research on this article. does not meet WP:PROF, violates WP:NOR, WP:VERIFIY etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Violates number of Wiki-policies, WP:PROF, WP:NOR etc. --
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete as before, due to lack of verifiability. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Strongkeep- Comment: I don't see why that alone is a reason to recommend keeping. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think not leaving a reasonable period between nominations is too easy to abuse. Just keep relisting it until people aren't paying enough attention and you'll eventually find the right set of "votes" to get a deletion. Note that none of the people who suggested Keep on the original Afd have said anything at all on this one yet. -- Hirudo 07:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see why that alone is a reason to recommend keeping. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment The argument was not made properly the first time and with enough evidence backing it. Simply because you apply a subjective reasoning to what a "reasonable" period of time is does not mean that you should ignore the evidence altogether and go against common sense in your vote simply because you believe that the procedure should have been different. If you are going to do that then you should abstain. --Strothra 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Hirudo 09:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, this probably would have been better dealt with through deletion review, but given that we're here, I agree the right thing is to keep going. And always remember, this is not a vote. Regards Ben Aveling 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Hirudo 09:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The argument was not made properly the first time and with enough evidence backing it. Simply because you apply a subjective reasoning to what a "reasonable" period of time is does not mean that you should ignore the evidence altogether and go against common sense in your vote simply because you believe that the procedure should have been different. If you are going to do that then you should abstain. --Strothra 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete per many of the editors above. -- Kicking222 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable professor. JIP | Talk 18:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not soo familiar with Juliard as I'm not an artist, but it apppears to be one of those extremely good places where all faculty are automatically notable. JeffBurdges 09:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did you read the article? He is not a faculty member of Julliard, he attended it as a student. Not all students at that school are notable.--Strothra 09:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- And frankly, I doubt there is any school where all faculty are automatically notable enough to warrent their own articles. Ben Aveling 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, no I didn't re-read the article, I read the previous AfD and gathered this from that one somehow. So 'abstain.' No, it seems pretty self explanitory that all tennured Harvard, etc. faculty are notable. PROFTEST even says so. Julliard seem to also have this property for permenent faculty. Yes, I left tenured out of my previous statment. JeffBurdges 10:17, 7 May 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.
