This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thanks go to User:Blackcap for pointing out all the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 19:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page. Asserts notability as a conductor, so can't be speedied under A7. --Blackcap | talk 20:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You know this how? Kurt Weber 20:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, simply being a "vanity page" does not qualify it for deletion. The proper standard for notability is "does it exist?". Kurt Weber 20:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at WP:VAIN, I would have to disagree with that. In the given example, no one is doubting that Mr. Bloggs exists, but that he's notable. --Blackcap | talk 20:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he exists, then he is notable, regardless of any assertions policy may make to the contrary--if it makes such assertions, then policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 21:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgive me if I am wrong, but is it your belief that every existing human being is notable enough to warrant a WP entry? That's extreme inclusionism, and goes against any WP policy or guidelines on the subject. If that is your feeling, then I suggest that you take it up on WP:DP. However, here isn't the place for policy change, just for whether or not this is an article worthy of keeping. --Blackcap | talk 21:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It certainly is extreme inclusionism...and yes, policy is wrong. And you're right, this is a discussion of whether or not the article is worthy of keeping--and it IS worthy of keeping. Kurt Weber 21:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The "Theodor-Körner Prize" that is mentioned in the article is really more like a stipend; it is not awarded for a completed work, but to enable the scientist or artist to complete it: (German description). In 2005 there were 47 recipients of the prize (see [1], again in German). Each recipient gets between 1500 and 3000 Euro. -- Austrian 22:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - the site I found seems to indicate he's a music student, roughly the equivalent to European music as a current Rhodes Scholar might be to the U.S. ESkog 22:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to establish notablity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zoe --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dottore So 16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Kurt Weber said above, it IS worthy of keeping. It is useful not only for casual readers but also for musicological research. Melomano 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's first edit. --Blackcap | talk 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
• Keep. The article is about Classical Music, not Pop Music. You can find information about "Juan Manuel Abras" through looking at specialized and renown international Classical Music databases (notability is required form being there; not "everybody" is listed) like the Music Infomation Center Austria (MICA) or the Gaudeamus Foundation Contemporary Music Center. Therefore, why shouldn't you be able to find such information through looking at Wikipedia? Of course the article is worth of keeping! I would encourage users like ESkog, Dottore So and Zoe (see previous posts) not to comment topics that are outside their field of knowledge,instead of posting erratic opinions on serious matters like Classical Music. Dr. Zotrix 23:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's first edit. --Blackcap | talk 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
• Keep per Dr. Zotrix. It DOES establish notability (see above)Lumenicus 03:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's first edit. --Blackcap | talk 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Which makes it unspeedieable, but not un-AfD-able. See WP:DP. --Blackcap | talk 04:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, where does it establish notability? See WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 04:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kurt Weber and Zotrix. You are right, Blackcap: besides the article's style, it's the biography itself that establishes notability. However, you must be versed in classical music (prizes he was awarded, institutions he studied at, teachers he studied with, etc.) to notice it properly. Check the listed specialized pages for some clues. Regards, Potomac 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's second edit. --Blackcap | talk 16:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gosh. The most valuable comments here are from Kurt Weber and Blackcap. Why everybody keep on commenting when it's all about a very simple matter? As one of them said: this is a discussion of whether or not the article is worthy of keeping--and it IS worthy of keeping. That's all folks. End of the story.... Kaosnoway 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's fourth edit. --Blackcap | talk 14:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Jesus Christ. WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 14:47, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.