Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza


 * 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-- JForget 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable musician. No actual releases yet, only source is a Myspace page. "Notable as a matter of right"? I don't even know what that means. GlassCobra 01:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Note to closing admin: If the result is delete, please also delete the redirect, Ola-abaza. GlassCobra 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Having "works in progress" is not enough to satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. MySpace is not a reliable source. No other verifiable source of notability given. -- Kesh 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Kesh Pilotbob 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not yet shown; no 'officially' published albums or other works. Myspacecruft as it stands. SkierRMH 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More sources have been added. This is a relatively small local artist and therefore not much should be expected. It remains useful for local people to find information about their own artists. The Myspace page cited has a very large following (18,000 plays and above). More info and refrences will be added as it is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You only added one, and it's some directory that explicitly says it's only for local artists. GlassCobra 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A composer with an audience, even an internet audience, is in a sense notable. Myspace is also very frequently cited around Wikipedia for bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "[I]n a sense notable"? What does that mean? And Myspace is included as a link in bands' articles, but it's not actually cited as a source in any. GlassCobra 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In short, my contention above is that a significant Internet audience (which is here evident) may help legitimate the article as notable. --Info Of Interest 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)


 * The Myspace link contains "third party" remarks in a sense. May also meet this notability guideline: "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."--Info Of Interest 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying things like "in a sense" and "may meet," which doesn't speak well for the notability of your subject. And the guideline that you're citing is definitely not met. Read it more closely. GlassCobra 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Could you imagine if Wikipedia had a page for every artist who has created music, it would be huge! Notability among a local group does not mean it is notable to an encyclopedia. Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Notability among a local group does not mean it is notable to an encyclopedia."- well yes it can. Why not? All 'notability' is limited to the "contexts of groups", local or global. Also, the thousands of online listeners are from all over the globe. etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC; no reliable sources presented, nor any indication of notability or major-label releases to be found. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Meets, "for composers outside the mass media", this criteria: "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. "--Info Of Interest 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a social networking site nor an extension of a social netwoking site. What you want is not what Wikipedia is. It is not even a Who's Who of people within a profession, e.g. an architect would not get a page here no matter how well he is thought of by his fellow architects unless he meets some notability standard. Notability is what happens when you break out of the MySpaces or Who's Whos. Why do you want that article here? It does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. --Justanother 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should be here for anyone who may look up info on the matter. In a sense a job for a Wiki-based archive of information to do. The point of my gesture is also to contribute to improving the online records of the membership and work of the Abaza Clan from a genealogical impulse.--Info Of Interest 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments, this one in particular, suggest to me that you have a very grounded interest in this topic, possibly autobiographical. In that case, this article would also be a violation of WP:COI. GlassCobra 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This non-notable individual doesn't meet WP:BAND -- no recording contract, no albums, MySpace adds zero notability.  His ancestry also adds zero notability (people are not notable for their relatives) and he doesn't meet WP:BIO.  But I was fascinated by trying to work out just what a "neutralized New Zealander" could be.  It's either castration or naturalization, and I have to hope for his sake it's the latter. Accounting4Taste 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * lol "neutralized New Zealander" means having gained citizeship but not having been born in the country. I think. But it needs to be stated clearer perhaps. There is a music label, although it is especially set-up. There is also the large internet audience. This is the age of the internet and digital media, not only physical CDs. Well, at least it is moving towards that. Myspace is a medium that can create large audiences. Listing the Abaza Clan's memebrs is important perhaps with refrence to their importance in Egypt (which is evident even just through internet searches).--Info Of Interest 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The word you're looking for is naturalized. -- Kesh 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Last note for now: I suspect both this article and the Ola Kamel article can probablly be edited to comply with your standards. I tried to do that today. --Info Of Interest 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and  are both primary sources that don't establish notability. As for the 18,000 plays on the myspace page, I think that argument is an example of WP:BIG.— Ksero 09:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the second refrence is a primary source. And in any case many band profiles and personal/official sites are cited on wikipedia articles in various forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
 * As I stated above, bands' Myspaces are included in their articles, but none of the articles actually cite the Myspace page as a source. You're clearly not reading anyone's responses to your points. GlassCobra 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As WP:PSTS writes, secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. I don't think does that. Therefore, it is not a secondary source, it's a primary source that doesn't establish notability. — Ksero 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of doing this. Your new link is just a list of people who exist. It does not establish notability at all. -- Kesh 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? I think you might have been confused by the unsigned comment. I was commenting on why the sources cited by the article didn't establish notability. — Ksero 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my indentation was off. That was meant for Infoguardian, as you pointed out. Must've been a bad night for my typing! -- Kesh 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To Glass Cobra: I read the responses fully. I see the matter as simpler, the page is within the scope of a wiki's expected contents and can be improved instead of deleted. When sources are limited then sources are limited, but they are not illegitimate simply because they include Myspace. Yes this is a primary source, but it provides info exactly as a primary source would, info which is valid. Third party sources are limited in this case with the exception of the hundreds of 'third party' comments on the Myspace page acknowledging the artist as notable. Somewhat notable. Perhaps notable enough for a brief article.--Info Of Interest 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your sources are not valid because they include Myspace, your sources are invalid because they are Myspace; you have nothing else. You have Myspace and another primary source, a list of local bands. Myspace is not a valid source for an article, period. You claim that it makes you notable because you have some number of plays, but as Ksero already said, this is not a valid argument (WP:BIG). You also claim that your comments on your Myspace confer notability, but is it not true that supporters would be more inclined to comment on your Myspace rather than those who dislike it, thus breaching the neutral point of view policy? Furthermore, as clearly stated in Reliable sources, sources must come from independent third parties (which your Myspace is clearly not, since it is yours and you put the information there) with a reputation for comprehensive fact-checking and accuracy (which again, a Myspace is not. Last I checked, anyone can say anything they want there). I'm sorry, but you do not meet the notability criteria for having an article. GlassCobra 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you all would not allow the article in any form, not even a limited form, or in a different place, then I guess I will just have to wait until so-called 'Third Party' sources appear.--Info Of Interest 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) I still stand by my stance that such an article is not entirely out of place. --Info Of Interest 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)--Info Of Interest 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)


 * a suggestion: perhaps an editor other than myself can strip down the article into a suitable stub?--Info Of Interest 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)


 * As I mentioned to Glass Cobra, I am an academic who appreciates rigour and accuracy. And so I find it hard to defend this article. Therefore, I accept deletion if you insist, but I hope for a stub or small article instead if the wiki community would allow it.--Info Of Interest 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
 * This just caught my eye: "the page is within the scope of a wiki's expected contents" which ties into the earlier "a Wiki-based archive of information". Therein lies the rub; Wikipedia is neither "a wiki" nor a "Wiki-based archive of  information" - it is a very specific sort of wiki that includes very specific sort of information. It is an encyclopedia. Would that you expend the effort you are expending here in creating or improving actually encyclopedic articles. --Justanother 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I no longer care whther the Ola-abaza article stays or not. --Info Of Interest 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Despite all of the above impassioned argument, the subject still clearly falls foul of WP:Music. A1octopus 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.