Talk:Thomas Bloch

Self-promotion?
This reads like shameless self-promotion with no references, but I can't be sure. --Romanempire (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely second that. I was thinking the same thing, which was why I checked out the discussions page. The Performances and Appearances section is nothing but a ridiculously long list. The entire section should be deleted... and I am personally leaning towards saying the entire article should be deleted. In addition, there is the distinct appearance that someone has gone through several articles on instruments that Thomas Bloch plays, and has added copious amounts of promotional details and links in favor or Thomas Bloch. It is downright suspicious. What do others day? September 25, 2009

Problems with this article
There is so much wrong with this article that I don't even know where to begin. First, it's written in a tone that indicates that whoever wrote it isn't a native English speaker. This is transparent. The grammar is very poor. I tried to correct some things, but it was too much to tackle all at once. Second, the article is written like a resume, like a C.V. that someone sends out with a headshot. That is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. Third, if Bloch is so important in this area (and I do believe that he is), then there should be sources in major magazines and newpapers referring to him. These sources need to be included in the article. Further, when you make claims like, "he is acknowledged as an expert," then you must back them up with citations! If this article continues to have no citations or sources and only grandiose claims, then I will assume Bloch is not notable and delete the article entirely. Please conform to guidelines. Thanks for understanding. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)