Talk:Zachary Lipton

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Zachary Lipton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903025321/http://www.moldyfigjazzclub.com:80/ to http://www.moldyfigjazzclub.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PROD removal
PROD concern stated as "Not enough sources, questionable notability, no longer a jazz musician, this article was a way to promote himself before attending graduate school." Google News and Google Scholar results suggest that he is notable as an academic. The article has not yet been updated to include his academic work, but that is not a reason to delete it, nor is the lack of sources, or the fact that he is no longer a jazz musician. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange logic. We're supposed to judge the article, not the subject. The article was created by someone under the assumption that he was a notable jazz musician. That's how I judge the article and that's how the article was written, about a jazz musician. He is not notable as a jazz musician. Very little has been written about him as a jazz musician. Therefore a substantive article about him (as a jazz musician) probably can't be written. Therefore it's foolish to wait around for it to happen—because it can't. It's fairly obvious that he wrote it about himself, which of course is against the rules. He is not notable as a jazz musician, and so should not be assigned to Wikiproject Jazz. If he is no longer primarily a jazz musician, he should not be assigned to Wikiproject Jazz. All the reasons that you say are not good enough for deletion certainly are good enough. You've been working under false assumptions.

WP:ARTN
Please see WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are saying there are plenty of sources out there for this subject, that this subject has been covered in depth, I need to see some proof of that assertion. This is not a game to me, and I'm not a kid. What difference does it make to you if this particular article is deleted? Do you believe you are engaged in some kind of moral crusade by "saving" articles? It's a serious question because I encounter this sometimes and it still baffles me what the motive is.
 * Reply You said above, "We're supposed to judge the article, not the subject." This is the exact opposite of WP:ARTN - we are supposed to assess the notability of a subject, not the article. That's what I was saying. I do not believe that I am working under false assumptions, as you also said above, by attempting to apply policy and assess the subject's real life notability, not merely how he is represented in the current article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)