Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad


 * 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, WP:SNOW, cited sources do not carry support which meets WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

BLP with no useful citations to anything in English, possible sockpuppetry, possible copyvio material lifted from other websites, marked as possibly Non-notable. Jubilee♫ clipman 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No real evidence of notability.  Appears to be a self-promotional article.  --Deskford (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also possible evidence of conflict of interest. Kobi Arad's ID on Twitter is kobiarad129, whereas this article was created by User:Knoblauch129 and substantially edited by User:Schoenberg129.  Is that recurring "129" suffix a coincidence?  --Deskford (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and on YouTube he appears to be greenpath129. --Deskford (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit wierd... I wonder why 129 particularly? --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 02:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would be happy to reconsider if this is cleaned up and given some solid references, but it's certainly not a WP-worthy article at present. -- Klein zach  03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem: certain of the editors involved in "expanding" this article happen to be implicated in the sockpuppetry investigation I have linked in my reasoning above. To clarify: Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129.  Worse still, all those editors seem to be creating links to this article in several important articles simply to unorphan it.  I'm not convinced the article can be tidied/sourced. --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if the outcome of the sockpuppetry investigation should prove favourable to the author(s), the lack of notability and reliable references would still have to be addressed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; I can't find any reliable sources that indicate notability. Everything that shows up on searches is in that vast self-promotion zone (Myspace, Yahoo, Facebook, mp3, Twitter, Amazon, ... Wikipedia ...) but absolutely nothing scholarly.  I'll switch to keep if he's covered in anything scholarly, or if there is a non-trivial mention in a major, mainstream publication.  And to add to the above -- beware sockpuppets.  He has at least six so far, and they're transparently obvious, for multiple reasons. Antandrus  (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to explain the copyvio allegation I made: if you look at the edit page for this article (or one of its previous versions) you will find weird line breaks that suggest copy/paste from a box in a webpage. One of the attempted Wiki links in the first paragraph is was actually broken because of this.  Does not prove copyvio but certainly suggests it.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — After much ado, editor Schoenberg129 helpfully admitted that he knows Arad and his manager personally. I'm pleased that Schoenberg129 made a genuine and protracted effort, but as promising as Arad is, I don't think his "Wiki notability" has arrived. This article really doesn't get very many hits, the majority of which may be Wiki editors. Attempting to add FA class to an article that's of questionable notability tips the scales for me. Enough editors have wasted time quibbling with the pro-Arad editor(s?). An experienced reader might look at the article's flimsy support and think "this guy isn't notable". I.e., the effect on Arad's career might actually be negative someplace where it will count (the day a record producer decides to check Wikipedia, for example). I'm not sure the article is to *anyone's* benefit, let alone the fact that Arad isn't notable (yet). Let's delete the article and move on. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; Agreeing with all of the above.  Too many editors have spent too much time trying to help this article into some useful form but there really is nothing with which to work.  The subject would struggle to achieve general notability even in it's most generous broadest definition and he comes nowhere near WP:MUSIC.  With claims such as "unique" and "forefront" one would expect some supporting coverage for verification but there is none.   The Israel National Radio is an internet radio station of unknown significance.  The Dizzy Gillespie transcription (co authored) earn him no mention on the publisher's website.     Even their listing for the book itself does not earn him a credit.  Today we have had links to reviews on JazzTimes added to the article but these are "community" reviews that were added today by someone who joined the community today.  Lame Name (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments. This has been a nuisance entry for some time, with endless reverts and general clutching at straws as far as references are concerned. The newest reference only manages to undermine one of the claims in the article (that he has the "only doctorate in third stream", see my talk page entry from today). I'm not convinced that Arad isn't notable, but his notability has never been established by any version of this article. Playing one gig at Blue Note doesn't make you notable. Getting one mention on a radio show doesn't, either. Where are the recordings, the press coverage, the interviews? It seems they are nowhere. If they don't start appearing, I'd have to vote delete. Hairhorn (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2010 (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.