Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cris Forster (second nomination)


 * 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. The comments by apparent single purpose accounts were discounted. Recreation in a non-autobiographical form (as suggested by Bottesini) that also demonstrates notability is not ruled out by this. Sandstein 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cris Forster

 * — (View AfD)

More or less the same article as before when it was considered vanity / autobiography. Rainwarrior 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spammy article created by WP:SPA, but it's not a repost. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. For your edification: (1) http://www.aboutus.org/Chrysalis-Foundation.org,  (2) http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.chrysalis-foundation.org, (3) http://www.oddmusic.com/chrysalis_foundation/index.html.  The information contained in these three sites inspired me to write this article on Cris Forster.  All the facts in my article may be verified by reviewing these sites.  -Rees —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolf Rees (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC).  — Wolf Rees (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment is the chrysalis foundation notable, and if so not the founder? Alf photoman 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as far as I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. If someone would care to explain how the subject meets the criteria though I'd be willing to reconsider.--Isotope23 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. Cris Forster is known in the field of instrument building as possibly the finest and his work in theoretical just intonation theroy is indispensible to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kraig grady (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC). — Kraig grady (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * '''Appears to be a sockpuppet of Wolf Rees, creator of the article Citicat 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm edgy about the COI problem, but the oddmusic.com link makes him look notable to me. The Harry Partch connection helps, too. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO, which requires that "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Just not enough quality sources here. -- Satori Son 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The microtonal music world is a small one, but Cris is well known there. Guidelines are guidelines, but they should scale according to the size of the discipline. -- jstarret 26:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) — 70.58.4.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Do Not Delete Forster's manuscript on Musical Mathematics is almost unique on the www, and that is rare. There is tuning information there I have not found anywhere else, internet or print.  To delete the link would be to declare the study of tuning unimportant. Badmuthahubbard 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the manuscript actually available on the www? All I could find was a table of contents and an ongoing campaign to get it into print (which unfortunately makes all of this sudden linking to the Chrysalis Foundation suspiciously like self-promotion). How is an unpublished manuscript notable? - Rainwarrior 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Sorry but VANITY strikes a real sour note. Creating and article about yourself is not what wikipedia is about. Plus asking all your friends to vote is so pathetic that even if the article was well-written and notable, I am automatically opposed. MiracleMat 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I have followed Forster's work for 30 years and I feel strongly that his work deserves an entry in Wikipedia. There seems to be some bias against microtonality here -- last year the main entry on microtonal music was repeatedly challenged until the poster convinced the princpal critic (a physicist, as I recall), that the subject was appropriate. Microtonal music is a rapidly growing movement in contemporary music worldwide, and Forster is a leader in the field and has been for decades. His beautifully crafted instruments were featured in Xenharmonikon 7&8 back in 1979, btw. I have added an external link to the WIKI article on microtonal music to provide more context for Forster's page.John H. Chalmers 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC) — John H. Chalmers (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment actually, the only bias I see here is against articles that are not verifiable by reliable sources; which is an absolute must for a wikipedia article. That is what is still missing here.  If Forster is a leader in the field, where is any sourcing that indicates that?  Like I said above I'd be willing to reconsider if some sort of reliable external sourcing were provided, but that has not happened as of yet.--Isotope23 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My nomination of this article a second time was because this is recreation of material that was deleted for being an autobiography. However, if Forster is demonstrably notable and we have several independent authors here willing to review and contribute to this article, I don't think this reason is any longer valid. If we can find some published sources about his notablity, then it should stay. - Rainwarrior 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I think he's notable, and the article can be edited and the external links cleaned up. - Mireut 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notable artist in a tiny and somewhat out-there field, but one fairly central to students of modern music.  Article needs sources, but that's not a good reason for deletion.  Ford MF 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that is a good reason for deletion. If something is not verifiable from reliable sources it shouldn't have an article and right now that is the case here.--Isotope23 06:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As in my comment above, I think there's enough interest here from other authors to make this a decent article. - Rainwarrior 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I certainly appreciate Rainwarrior's willingness to assume good faith and be openminded, I am still of the opinion that this article should be deleted, despite the apparent withdrawal of nomination. -- Satori Son 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, anyone could have nominated it if I hadn't. I would hope that my change of opinion doesn't carry any more weight than any other comment here. - Rainwarrior 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite for vanity. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are articles about people from this concentration who contributed fewer instruments than Forster, with fewer potential sources than what's cited at this page, http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/about_cris_forster.htm Mireut 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: maybe a delete and recreate or a blank and complete re-write to address WP:AUTO issues. --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like there might be quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on here. See the report filed here. Citicat 02:59, 3 January 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.