Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Little Konzett


 * 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 draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to allow improvements to be made. ✗ plicit  14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Manfred Little Konzett

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Rejected at AFC largely unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Theroadislong, I understand you're looking at deleting this article. I am afraid I may have been lied to? I received an email from someone claiming to be a wikipedia editor cleaning up old articles which have been rejected. he, (now i see, recently someone edited or published my article, under the handle of "BradKins" said he'd edit my page to help it meet Wikipedia's standards. I thought this would be good, that an 'official' Wikipedia editor would improve the article. Now I see your message that the article is nominated for deletion. I remember you, Theroadislong, as you'd reviewed my article a couple of years ago. I do understand the reasons you think the article does not yet meet notability, but it is a work in progress, and I am always seeking new, valid press to validate the worthiness of this article. Please advise. Thank you kindly, Beth 2A02:1210:4AB8:4C00:597C:3125:BFD1:EAF4 (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In an edit summary it was claimed "Wikishovel approved this page". Perhaps you would like to chime in here... Fram (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ping again. Fram (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment article has been duplicated here Manfred “Little” Konzett. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've had no involvement with this article, as the edit history shows, and this is not the first time that User:BradKins has pulled this stunt. I'll take this to WP:ANI, thanks for the ping.
 * As for the emailed offer of "help", a sockfarmer used my name in a similar scam last November, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141. I cost these parasites money pretty regularly.
 * you posted a response at your user talk page ten minutes ago, similar to the anonymous response above: was that you? If so, please log back in, thanks. It looks like you may be the victim of a scam. Were you asked for money for the "help" with the article? Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Wikishovel Yes, both of those responses were from me. I had responded without logging in, then noticed I should have logged in so you'd know it was really me.
 * Yes, I was asked to contribute money for the improvements Bradkins wanted to make. I have contributed money to Wikipedia before, officially, so the word contribute didn't worry me. The email I'd received sounded very official. I'm sorry for this trouble, this is upsetting for me. Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've done nothing wrong, and the emails used for these scams can be quite persuasive. Please don't blame yourself for this, it can very easily be put right. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, @Wikishovel, I greatly appreciate your concern and experience regarding this worry. Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

CSMention269 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I observed the reasons of the AfC rejection. It should be deleted failing for no RS per WP:N
 * I'm sorry, what exactly does this comment mean, please? Thank you, Beth Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I click on CSMention269, it says this page does not exist. Is @CSMention269 also a scam? Thank you, Beth Beth Wimmer (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, joined in Dec 2023. How could you say that I don't have a info page means I'm a scam? You make me laugh! CSMention269 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify, article creator is being scammed, so let's let AfC take its usual course. Wikishovel (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's good practice @Wikishovel, but are you sure about this even after several declines followed by rejection of it? We can still do that if the user promises to improve the page by with complying our guidelines to avoid further declines. CSMention269 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A move back to draft should be contingent upon no further attempts to submit without substantial improvement. All previous AfC templates, including the rejection, should also be restored. If no substantial improvements can be made to the rejected draft within 6 months, it will be speedy deleted as G13. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I do promise to make substantial improvement on the article, and won't attempt to submit until I have done so. @CSMention269, I'm sorry if I offended you with the comment that perhaps your profile name was a scam. I was confused by your name not having an info page, and being in red color. You mention you've only joined Wikipedia two months ago. I noticed on your talk page that you've had several articles already published. That's impressive. Perhaps you'd be willing to also contribute to/edit the article I created, to help it meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you everyone, Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete or draftify: Page made by blocked user, largely unreferenced, and possibly unnotable. Unless more reliable sources are found (See DISCOGS), I'll choose to delete it. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * vote* to delete it. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been at work most of the day, but I have found some new, reliable sources to cite. Please don't vote to delete this article. I can work on it and improve the notability. It is my first article on Wikipedia and as you know, it takes time to get things right. Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also get rid of the DISCOGS links. I've seen the link you mentioned. Fair enough. Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the article creator hasn't been blocked, but the account that moved it to main space has. Wikishovel (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Primary sourcing or non-RS used now in the article, and I can't find much else for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * also @Wikishovel: My plan is to remove the newspaper articles cited where one would need to login to read the reference. I have found new press to validate this subject. Please give me more time. You know, I have loved and supported (financially) Wikipedia for years. Why would you not approve of an article about a self-taught, internationally appreciated person who works with legendary musicians and uses old-fashioned analog methods of recorded included on Wikipedia? When I see other articles written about rather unnotable people, which have passed. for example (hoping not to offend anyone): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Jones_(musician)
 * How is this article any better or more valid than the one I've created?
 * Please wait and see until I remove the Liechtenstein Vaterland citations, and add some new, valid referencing. I'm trying my best. I am not a criminal. :) Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want you to know that you should probably see WAX. Basically, another article's existence shouldn't be used to support an article proposed to be deleted. In fact, the article that you linked should be deleted. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, i read it. Beth Wimmer (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Newspaper references are not necessarily a problem. Secretlondon (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, @Secretlondon, but i realize some of the newspaper articles cited for reference in the article require a profile/login to read them. That is a bit pesky, no? Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They are probably reliable sources, which you are short of. Secretlondon (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (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.