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 Gnangarra 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sten Hostfalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Edit history suggests that this page is autobiographical. Also lacks published sources that would assert notability. Rainwarrior 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as a red-flag COI. This editor has done absolutely nothing except to put his own name into Wikipedia as many places as he can. I'll go remove all the other edits. YechielMan 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and just encourage others to edit it. --164.107.223.217 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep despite conflict of interest; article cites several independent sources (though I'd be happier with better sources). NawlinWiki 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all and thank you for your input. Helps to have experienced wikipeople involved. At this point, the article is supported by a good amount of credible and closely related sources. And the article is clearly and specifically referring to these and to what has been officially publicized. thanks --Sonusrex 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The links to several webpage CD reviews of the 29 Pieces for Microtonal Guitar do assert some notability. There is, however, still a clear conflict of interest, but at present the article seems limited to verifiable claims at least. - Rainwarrior 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ...The article seems to lack importance. If more information, cited within the article, would be included, I would consider changing that vote to a keep. As it stands now, it looks like a relatively minor person attempting to get their name on Wikipedia. That's not worthy of a keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.134.194.139 (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no Allmusic bio is usually a poor sign of notability. Most of the sources in the article are primary. Of the remainder, some of the mentions are trivial (woohoo, a Guitar Player editor was spinning his disc). --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point of view. Thank you. However, Guitar Player is the world's leading guitar magazine. An editor's pick there means major recognition. Regardless of how many sentences written about it. And of course the New York Jazz / improvised scene is in itself highly esteemed, NYC being the world's capital of Jazz. Anybody with a documented creative activity there will by default be making a significant contribution to the art form. Being part of the current developments on the NYC music scene for over a decade means being in the major league of that activity. All music guide will have several reasons for not including a bio. Many prominent musicians does not appear biographically there. However their activity is always recorded there. Rather, their respective associations (to other musicians) indicate their importance. --Sonusrex 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete First, the Guitar Player link is a stretch at best and to me underscores the COI issue here. Assuming the COI is correct, Sonusrex probably should not even be participating in this discussion. WP:NOTE looks for multiple non-trivial sources which do not seem to be found here. That plus the WP:COI issues and the subject seeking to influence this discussion causes me to think it should be deleted. JodyB _talk 18:47, 5 May 2007 (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.