Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George A. Borgman/vote 2

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 00:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

George A. Borgman

 * George A. Borgman was previously nominated for deletion on 2005-01-28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".  For the prior discussion see Votes for deletion/George A. Borgman/vote 1.


 * I am putting this page up for deletion because he is non-notable and because it is vanity and because it seems to have been written by himself or someone in his family. He is a nobody! Get rid of him! MichaelMoore 3 July 2005 01:38 (UTC) Delete.
 * Keep He is notable enough for me. It doesn't matter who wrote it or why. Paul August &#9742; July 3, 2005 04:00 (UTC)
 * Keep Not exceptionally notable, but the article is comprehensive and the content is verifiable. Possible POV in the tone, but that can easily be cleaned up by someone less lazy than ourselves. Dystopos 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plank 3 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
 * Keep. Borderline notability, article is NPOV. Pburka 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
 * Delete POV borderline notability. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
 * Comment. In consideration of the fact that notability is not itself a criteria for deletion, and that deletion is considered a rather extreme form of correction, unsuitable for POV issues, I strongly recommend cleanup rather than deletion. There is some good information there that shouldn't be trashed because of editorial weaknesses. Dystopos 4 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm curious which portions of this article editors find too POV. I think it's fairly neutral. Pburka 4 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
 * I agree. Of course, POV-ness on its own is not a reason to delete anyway.  Jgm 6 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. He's a published critic with a movie role.  A borderline case, but meets the standard, I think.  Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he really is anything like one of the top ten jazz critics, as claimed, he's definitely notable.  Surely we have server space for ten contemporary jazz critics on Wikipedia.  I think the author of the article is a non-issue.--Pharos 4 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems to be notable enough to have an entry, due to recognition (I did not check for verification.) --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information here is easily verified and proves notability.  No consensus to delete before, no significant changes, should not have been re-nominated in the first place. Jgm 6 July 2005 22:20 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.