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 Mandsford 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Looking at the references provided:

• The Christchurch Press ("Bombing Shames All")

  it confirms that he has written an article (he is the writer of that article), and the details which he provided the news organisation of what he is doing - not independent, or evidence of notability

• Humblevoice - "Contains scans of more publications"

  his own account at Humblevoice. Scans of publications on a person's own website do not meet the reliability criteria - and the 3 articles scanned merely confirm that he has written a couple of newspaper articles (at least one is the same as the Christchurch Press one)

• The Dominion Post and The Press ("Egyptians fear for families")

  one line quote from him (Christchurch writer and philosophy and religion researcher Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza said that without a secure Egypt, there was little hope for a healthy and secure Middle East or North Africa.) - not significant coverage; also, the description of him was probably from himself to their reporter (in the same way that if I was interviewed by a newspaper reported and asked what my job was, they probably wouldn't look into it too much, unless I was the main focus of the article, which he wasn't in this one)

• Utopia Creations

  no evidence that this independent film organisation is notable, or that his work being on it mark him as being notable

• TVNZ Interview

  link does not work, and I cannot find any mention of him anywhere on the TVNZ website

Overall, I see no evidence that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:COMPOSER PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG per lack of independent sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following responses were interspersed within my nomination statement above. I have moved them here (before Kellyrussell34's 'keep' comment). The only additions are bullet points showing which source Kellyrussell34 is referring to above. I have also added my responses as would be normally done. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Christchurch Press:

• It confirms he is an active writer. well done! so the news organisation published a false description? how else will we get a description of what he does? the paper is not his site.. totally independant.. and how do u know if he provided the info or if they knew him and invite dhim for example? he had published there before!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It confirms that he wrote this story with his byline. I could find examples of stories written by a friend in 3 different newspapers, but they would not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Writing a newspaper article with your byline is not enough to meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Humblevoice:

• but the scans even though they are on his site are CLEAR evidence of being NOTED in independant sources.. it is simply the place where i found evidence of some of his writing. this is absurd.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia requires them to be sourced at the original source. Playing devil's advocate, I could put some newspaper articles on a website I have access to, which would show my byline - but it would have been altered, as I am not a writer! I am not saying that this has been done, but Wikipedia has no way of verifying that the scans are unaltered, unless they are on the original source's website PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dominion Post and The Press

• ye sthe Dominion example is not major but is yet ANOTHEr example of activity consultation from an INDEPENDANT site and a large paper of the nz capitol city. and it confirms YET AGAIN that he is an active writer and researcher in such and such!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, "without a secure Egypt, there is little hope for a healthy and secure Middle East or North Africa" is hardly a world-expert speaking! It could have been a quotation from almost anyone in the area who the reporter spoke to. Again, this is nowhere near satisfying WP:CREATIVE PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Utopia Creations

• UTOPIA site: not HIS site. the thing shows his music video.. clearly one of many online example sof his compositions--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC) what else do u want? is this because he is arabic?!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that it was his site - but I could find nothing to show the criteria that Utopia uses for choosing whose work they have on their website. Do they put their friends' work there? Do people pay to have their work put up there? Do Utopia pay people for their work? Without knowing the providence of the website and the work, we have no way of knowing. I could find no information about the website, who owns it, etc. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As for "Is this because he is Arabic?" - frankly I find it insulting that you effectively accuse me of being racist/culturalist. I have clearly explained why the sources are not suitable, and linked to the two guidelines for inclusion (more of this below) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TVNZ Interview

• TVNZ (a major TV station in NZ covering a major event live on TV 'significant coverage?'which confirms him as sociologist and translator) website may not keep things foreva... here is a link where it is clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NYv5Bx9uRY It is his official fan page but clearly shows the interview. There are two interviews at least on radio on the Humble Voice account. I am sure there is more and i shall look for it. He is clearly involved in research for that academic journal also.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I could not verify the TVNZ coverage - and verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Youtube is not counted as a reliable source, his own websites (and fan pages) are not counted as reliable sources. You say that he "is clearly involved in research for that academic journal also" - could you provide a link to somewhere at the journal's official website which shows this? I had a look, but couldn't find it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - all the papers the tvnz interview and radio interviews are NOT his. and they simply show that he has in fact published and is publishing actively and being consulted actively. I have trie dto contact his websites to ask for more info but no reply yet.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you really need to read (I'll admit that I did not mention these before in our discussions, because they are clearly linked in the welcome message at the top of your talk page, so I assumed that you had read them):

• All information in Wikipedia should be verifiable
• Such information should be at reliable sources which are independent of the subject
• Each subject should meet the General Notability Guidelines

As I said in my nomination here, and on the message I left on your talk page, there are two subject-specific notability guidelines which he needs to meet:

1. Notability Guidelines for people: Creative (including authors and journalists. The 4 criteria, of which at least one must be met (and which I could find no evidence of him meeting), are:
   1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
   2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
   3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
   4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
2. Notability Guidelines for Notability (Music) - Composers. The 6 criteria (of which at least one must be met, and for which I could find no evidence of him meeting) are:
   1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
   2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
   3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
   4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
   5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
   6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

I acknowledge that I may have missed an independent, reliable source that shows that he meets one of these criteria, in which case I would be grateful if you would give a reference to such source(s). Failing that, I do not see under what criteria you believe that he qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the General notability guideline? These are confirmations of more 'significant coverage' in terms of publications and interviews than most ppl.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be my final comment on this AfD, as I have explained on my talk page. Firstly, "most people" are not being considered for inclusion on Wikipedia; secondly, whether "most people" have less coverage or not is not relevant to this AfD - we are discussing this article, not any other ones; thirdly, I have explained above in detail why the confirmations of coverage do not meet the criteria for independent reliable sourcing. I will leave it to other editors to comment further at this AfD as appropriate. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do think it is absurd that the video on youtube doe snot count - so you are telling me he didn't in fact appear on TV.. maybe they archive the videos for only a few days. It was on their site. Also, at least one of the full articles written by him are not on his site. And how else would one put records of news paper publications except by scanning them? Anyway that is what I will say on the talk page and we shall see. I think the sign are that people on ere are stubborn ... there are some really silly stubs and articles on wikipedia. I do not quite understand how many articles you want. Your 'firstly': i used that phrase not to suggest that most ppl are for wikipedia.. i don't know why you need to tell me that. I am saying he is active and we can see it on the net with our eyes and hear it too. You are just refusing to accept the sight and sound of the TVNZ interview as if it didn't happen because it i son youtube instead of TVNZ's channel... that the delete their videos is normal. That the news papers don't keep article sonline forver i snrml.. people then scan them and put them online.. clear evidence of publication and activity. oh well.. but do what u want!.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't say that I've ever seen an article that questions its own notability, i.e. "However, there is no indication of a release date for any of the musical work", but here we are. There simply does not appear to be any way that this person meets out general notability guideline. Fans voting for videos at NZ's myspace music pages is all well and good, nice to see him being quoted in regards to the Egyptian protests, but none of that supports notability for a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep you are not addressing what i said. there is 'coverage' in papers, on tv and on radio of his none musical work. You did not see it? So he is not an active writer in several major NZ papers and on its main TV station and on etc etc? is it not clear from the internet that that is real? i show clearly that there is coverage..and in famous publications, repeatedly, and it is ridiculous not to accept the evidence of the TVNZ interview on youtube ( you can hear and see it!) or the clear scans of his work or the article on the press website (u can see thosetoo, right?). So what if he has not published music he published writing and appeared on major national media. How many more articles do u need? how many more interviews? for some one to meet your criteria! --kellyrussell34 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep you know there are ppl on wiki with articles that basically just appear on trashy magazines writing nothing doing nothing being interviewd about no major world events. is that more notable? --kellyrussell34 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you can always make more comments, but please do not do so with a bolded "keep" over and over. You can only "vote" once in an AfD. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page has potential. There are several publications, interviews and radio appearances in his nation. I agree with above, he has clearly had coverage.--Raptureboy 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptureboy — Raptureboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The above is FALSE and not relevant: this is a list of contributions I made so far:

12:43, 28 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza ‎ (irrelevant and untrue)

01:06, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) Peggy Payne ‎ (This one needs a lot of attention. Established subject.) (top)

01:01, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Fetish culture ‎ (capitals) (top)

01:00, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Fictional book ‎ ('a mode of') (top)

00:59, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Jack Yang ‎ (cleaning up) (top)

00:57, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Hanoi Contemporary Arts Centre ‎ ('that showcases') (top)

21:48, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Comeytrowe ‎ (Break paragraph.) (top)

21:47, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Bosavern Penlez ‎ (Clean up.) (top)

21:41, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Shore rockling ‎ (top)

21:40, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Nemacheilus jordanicus ‎ (top)

21:25, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m PP Mi-D mine ‎ (top)

21:23, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Parque de La Granja ‎ (top)

21:23, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Hopak ‎

21:20, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) candidates, 1987 Ontario provincial election ‎ (top)

21:19, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Edgard Varèse ‎ (Shorter is smarter.) (top)

21:18, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Vitalic ‎ (Passive voice) (top)

21:16, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Vangelis ‎ (top) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptureboy (talk • contribs)

• Delete Lacks coverage about Abaza. Articles by him do not make him notable. A few quotes from him are not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How many article sand interviews does a person need for notability. You do not at all show why your 'judgement' about this being not enough o significant coverage should hold. You just tell us its too few. without answering why it doe snot (which i think it clearly does) indicate that this is an active personality with local coverage? There is no quote such as 'at least this no. of article smust be found on the internet' or at least more than this number of interviews in major tv or radio stations' he has enough of each of these things at least and that is what we can find on the net. it indicates he has coverage and confirms info in the article.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How many articles...?" Let's start with finding a first which has coverage ABOUT him. The tv piece was just a New Zealand based Egyption (as appears under his name) that the NZ press could talk to. There has not been significant coverage ABOUT him, just two trivia this is basicly who he is intros. Him writing stuff is not about him and is not independent of him, no matter where it is hosted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• some stubs have barely one refrence... i do think you are not looking in the context fairly.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Christchurch Press, The Dominion Post, TVNZ are notable. This three references are independents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.74.40.248 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — 86.74.40.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Summarising the arguments for keep...WP:ITEXISTS, YouTube video, "local coverage", interviews (WP:PRIMARY), articles written by him (ditto), etc. Second keep !vote was user's first edit on Wikipedia after registering; other keep !vote is an IP with no other contribution history. Articles published by somebody do not establish notability regardless of the repute of the publisher; there are no secondary sources establishing notability. If they are found, no prejustice against recreation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC) *Note: This !vote was struck out by The Bushranger, as he relisted the debatePhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what "exists" is evidence of work and apperaance son major media in his country. no one has addressed how many damn appearances are needed. he is not just mentione din article she writes them. the youtube video shows the live interview. i can't find it elsewhere. so what if someone made a contribution to this good on them! Do your votes not count unless u have been here a year or two!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questions you are asking are not relevant in terms of meeting the Wikipedia's general notability guideline; we don't tally up tv appearances. Thousands of people are interviewed on tens of thousands of news stations day in and day out around the globe. That doesn't much matter for the Wikipedia. Find reliable sources that discuss Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza in-depth; not simply videos of tv shows on which he appears, and not simply columns he has penned in newspapers. There's also a special guideline for journalists and the like, WP:CREATIVE. Does this person meet any of those 5 criteria? Tarc (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes he is regarded as important enough to be consulted as an authority in his country. also he meets general notability by having coverage in significant media. how 'in depth' do u want? --kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is that important and meets the WP:GNG, please provide sources by people who are writing about him, not articles written by him. Articles written by him do not constitute 'significant coverage'. also, AfD is not voting; anyone can contribute, but if somebody's first, or only, post is to a contentious AfD discussion, it can give the impression, rightly or wrongly, of their being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Finally, please remember WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haha ok so now it has to eb article s'about him'..sure i will try and look. but 'it exists' is not the argument i made. it exists and indcates/implies that he is sought after and respected in his small country.... articles 'by him' are entirely relevant to an entry about a writer! i don't care what you say about those others who voted. they are free to start at any time do anything your 'impressions' are your own not law or truth--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, one needs proof. You, here, just saying "he is" simply isn't enough. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how am i not civil? is that your next mode of attack?--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of use of profanity in your arguments is the concern. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This may very well be the most confusingly formatted AfD I've ever read through, and it certainly seems like some of the editors may be SPAs. That being said, the sources don't seem to indicate notability, so I !vote delete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whats an SPa and why is all this not 'coverage?--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Coverage' is Secondary sources discussing the subject of an article. An article sourced only to primary sources, especially a biography of a living person, does not establish that somebody or something is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok.. first yes im obviously a fan and my concern right now is this but it is not my single purpose and my account will be used as i wsh. the sources do not belong to him at all. TVNZ doe snot... niether do any of the papers or radio stations... that he has a scan on his website of something FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE still shows u the external source. thanks fora nswering btw...i dont know most of ur rules.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, asking is how we learn. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. The article is fine. 3 'delete' and 3 'keep'--Raptureboy 03:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I had originally said that I probably wouldn't comment here again, but as it has been relisted, I have a couple of comments which I would like to make, even if it is repeating what I have already said!:
  1. We need reliable sources which are independent of the subject. YouTube videos are not counted as reliable. In theory, I could record a TV interview, edit it and put myself in it, and then upload it to YouTube. There is no independent verification that the video on YouTube has not been edited. However if the video was on the original source's own website (i.e. the new organisation's official website), we know that it is the unedited version - if it is anywhere else, we cannot guarantee that. Likewise with scans of newspaper articles: scans can be edited, and we would have no way of knowing that. If the scan is on the newspaper's official website, then we know that the scan is unedited.
  2. We need evidence that "he is regarded as important enough to be consulted as an authority in his country": having a one-line quote does not indicate this. I have had a one-line quote in a newspaper when I was asked a question by a reporter, but that does not make me an authority or expert! Another friend who runs a housing association has written articles for newspapers, and had several interviews in both newspapers and on the radio - but she would not meet the criteria, even though she could reasonably be counted as being an "expert" in her local community. Is there any where that someone (other than the subject himself) has written something along the lines of "He is widely regarded as an expert in ...."?
  3. Having a byline is insufficient in and of itself to make someone notable. If I look in the London Evening Standard, I see several reporters who have submitted many full-page stories every year over the last few years, and yet they do not meet the criteria for inclusion. The criteria for notability are clearly shown here, as well as subject-specific criteria for composers here and creative professionals here. I have found no indication that he meets any of these criteria, using reliable independent sources to verify the information.

As such, I still feel that the article should be deleted. Now this will probably be my last contribution! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ohh ok so you are suggesting that he edited interviews to pretend he was on tv and to pretend he published articles? haha ok. even though clearly the press site at least has him online still... a youtube video counts in other articles. I have seen them. for example news reports are often cited which are on youtube and not the original news site. As soon as I find even more articles and refrences and videos to prove you all wrong i shall be back! thanks anyway.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not suggesting that - I am merely pointing out that we have no way of knowing, unless the interview is on the original source's site. What happens in other articles is irrelevant here - we are discussing this article - but even so, if the only source for information in those articles were YouTube videos, they could be proposed for deletion, as content on YouTube is not independent or verifiable. But as I said, we are discussing this article - if you feel that other articles should be deleted you can either propose them for deletion or take them to Articles for deletion.

Other articles having something does not mean that this should. Very rarely, vandalism remains on an article for a while without being noticed and removed. So, if you see an article which says "he is a great big booger and likes eating small babies" on an article, would you conclude that we can tell lies in other articles? Of course not! You'd say, no that should be removed!

Yes, the Press site has his article online - but that is not enough to demonstrate notability. Has he won any national/international awards for journalism? Has anyone written about him, other than himself. As I said above, just having a byline is not sufficient in and of itself to be notable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask the people who say that this article should be kept... which of the following 10 criteria does he meet:

1. Notability Guidelines for people: Creative (including authors and journalists. The 4 criteria, of which at least one must be met (and which I could find no evidence of him meeting), are:
   1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
   2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
   3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
   4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
2. Notability Guidelines for Notability (Music) - Composers. The 6 criteria (of which at least one must be met, and for which I could find no evidence of him meeting) are:
   1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
   2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
   3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
   4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
   5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
   6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

I have still be unable to find any evidence that he meets any of these criteria, and no one here has provided any evidence that he does. All we have is that he has composed some tunes (but that he doesn't meet any of the 6 criteria above), written some newspaper articles (but doesn't meet any of the 4 criteria above) and has given a couple of one-line quotes (but with no evidence shown that he is regarded as an expert, an authority on a subject). If someone can provide evidence that he meets any of these criteria then I am happy to withdraw my nomination. So far, no one has. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw the TVNZ interview. The presenter is clearly addressing him anyway. The Press and Dominion are big local papers.--121.72.80.173 (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — 121.72.80.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, doesn't appear to have the substantial coverage which our usual notability requirements demand. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep i was told if outside sources describe him then its notable... well he announced on his site that the auckland museme has invited him... very prestigious and with another academic.. so soon u will be lal shown to be wrong.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

STOP voting more than once, please. You have been warned about this already. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.