Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Stewart


 * 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   keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Stewart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced since 2007. No significant coverage found at reliable sources, only very minor mentions --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

With very little effort, I found an article from Stewart's Fuel era covering some details from his career. Looks reliable to me. If I take the time to add it as reference, is it enough? I'd say keep. --Sk4170 (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Without knowing the source, I can't really comment! Also, without knowinh what parts of the article it verifies, I can't comment. However, I have always been open to persuasion (my aim is not to remove articles unless they can't be reliably sourced - if you look at my recent contributions, you'll see quite a few articles which also were unreferenced since 2007, which I found reliable sources for!) - give more information, and then I (and other editors) can make a reasoned response --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also notice that almost all of your edits are about Stewart or the bands he was involved in - do you have a potential conflict of interest here? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been on Wikipedia for a little while, first as anonymous user, trying to learn little by little how to do this and then, wanting to start a new article, signed up. I've been reading and editing some articles which interest me first and foremost as a fan of music, of certain artists and bands. I believe that's how most less active wiki contributors are involved. After reading about Wikipedia:COI - which is all new information to me, as so many of Wikipedia policies still are - I can't see myself as having conflict of interest regarding Stewart's article. Unless being a fan of a band where he played once can be counted as such. Here's a link to the reference I mentioned: http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/pullenmyblog/2007/10/flints_tommy_stewart_fires_up_reengineered_fuel.html. I won't be using it in the article until this question of deletion is solved. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was sure that I'd already replied, but obviously I didn't! Firstly, from what you have said, you indeed do not have a conflict of interest - I thought it was worth mentioning though, as often people who edit articles do! I have removed the single-purpose account tag that I had previously used here, as it is no longer appropriate. That source would count as a reliable source, as the Flint Journal is a recognised paper, and Doug Pullen is one of their journalists. Feel free to use it as a citation (even during the duration of this discussion) - just remember that any opinions mentioned there (especially those of Stewart himself) should not be used, just the facts! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you! I took some time to edit the article and added a few references, but it still needs more editing and sources. --Sk4170 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- meets WP:MUSIC criteria 6, member of at least two different notable acts. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, article needs work, but he meet the bar. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NM criteria 1 (coverage in multiple reliable sources) and 6 (member of at least two notable bands). Article needs expanding, but it's a good start. --Sk4170 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 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.