Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jim DeBerry

I want to make a couple of points. The sources are creditable sources and it falls under the criteria  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinsnerB1942 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Comment
 * 1) 	It does not meet the criteria for deletion
 * 2) 	The as original nominator made unfounded claims, thus deletion by assumption is not criteria.
 * 3) 	On the User_talk:Bjelleklang talk page I attempt to address the user, and in my opinion he kept jockeying others opinion, i left the person a comment on his talk page, no answer but rather continuing to attempt to slight others. In fact this user brings up the point i’m not the originator of the article as another has attempted to create it before thus debunked the initial claim of deletion. Below is the comment to the user Why did you add an explanation point on delete? Your “basis of sounded too good to be true is without merit”. The statement regarding “2400 over a 15 year period” is off base. Let me debate your counter claim, Most entertainers who tour, do not tour non stop 24/7. We are talking about 40% of the time over a 15 year period. If you think about it for most entertainers this is normal. A lot of entertainers while youths doing school typically have tutors, home school, internet courses, and special programs as this article person falls under, think tim tebow, child actors, hanson the band. Also, not all radio shows require you to be there 24/7, some are not everyday, in fact some host appear mobile or not there every appearance,  some call in when they are on the road and have co-host fill in, this person was a co-host of a show, meaning two host, thus the show can go on without him. Many entertainers who do multiple things and use different platforms.  Think along the lines of Carrot Top, Magic Johnson, many people have career shifts. It’s logical to believe over a course of a time the events of the article are true not true.  Additionally, Basic knowledge of the swimming pool industry may help you, some companies like a lot of other industries offer seasonal employment or have down time in which the industry near shuts down ie theme parks or sports.. some offer contract or salary employment not hourly, this person in particular as mentioned in some of the sources is a qualifier or license holder or the contractor, positions like this and many other upper management positions do not require the position holder to be there all the time. Most entertainers have multiple jobs, they are notable and unique not your everyday run of the mill.
 * 4) 	The article says nothing about raising a family, not sure why you raised such point. Most individuals of this caliber typically have a lifestyle in which they do not the family raising and if they did, they usually load them on tour bus or rv or hotel.
 * 5) 	This statements are not with genuine merit, it’s assumptions of negativity, i believe judgment should not be negativity passed.
 * 6) 	 The article was looked over by many editors and suggested upon and approved based on the suggestions including with suggestions by the ones who denied the article, who ask me to go back to the article and look over because in their opinion it was close and some said it's a good article in the making, this editors made comments to me in afc on the article page, not the talk page of what they liked and what they felt needed improved which was done, that’s not a lie.
 * 7) 	keep in mind, I went to chat support and I had made this editor User_talk:Bjelleklang aware initially of the article, I asked User_talk:Bjelleklang with my questions of “if you could and would offer a positive way to improve and what one thing of this article he would improve. what would it be and why.  For someone reason on the other hand this editor bit my head off and wrote deleted., i understand i'm a newbie here but i have intentions of staying longer. Biting my head off for this the article question  that I run asked you chat support prior to you have any knowledge of the article  was done to help improve the state of the article to lead it be kept eventually before the 10 day expires. You did not make an effort to improve have been more of an deletionist.
 * 8) 	i also do not understand why User_talk:Bjelleklang somewhat coerced (maybe too strong of a word, if so i apologize)or jockey another editor who felt it was worthy? that is not NPV in my opinion, it's jockeying. I was am hopeful User_talk:Bjelleklang would take my points into consideration, he failed to reply but rather keeps going back to the page and jockeying more negative points that could be causes impartial judging. AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.
 * 9) 	As I have offer many, this, I’m willing to make variations to improve it more. i also offered users who didn’t like the article for offers for improvement and for them to make edits and discuss them with me. I believe this article is worthy of inclusion, just because someone does not like the article topical doesn’t mean it’s ground to keep looking for reasons of deletion, it’s keeping personal interest on User_talk:Bjelleklang .. if included it will grow, it can be edited over time. Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected
 * 10) 	 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg&page=1 I recommend reviewing, it’s clear some of the editors with delete comments fall under here.
 * 11) 	I also believe some are falling under If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favor of keeping or deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position. Which in this case we are running into.
 * 12) 	 purely personal point-of-view problems in some of the deletes
 * 13) 	As in a paper encyclopedia, some articles will be several pages long, others just a line or two. There is no minimum or maximum length that qualifies an article, just the reliable sourcing of the information. Since nothing is in stone, articles can grow, shrink, merge, split, and change in all different ways over time. But once the subject becomes clearly notable, they do not disappear.
 * 14) 	Concerned of a possible aussie posse alliance against the article, Bidgee (talk) LauraHale (talk
 * 15) 	As for the argument on the sources, Pool & Spa News is a part of Hanley Wood publications. It is a national publication that is distributed in the tens of thousands. It does not use every run of the mill pool company, it only uses reliable companies and executives with note worthy inclusion, the pool industry has hundreds of companies in each city only worthy nationally known companies are accepted and covered, we are talking about a large industry. The editors of such magazine are from LA times, etc, it’s a worthy publication. Also the Orlando Sentinel is a large newspaper with high circulation. Ink19 is a weekly paper at the time of print had over tens of thousands in distribution. Radio stations such as WTKS, WPRK and WJRR have some of the highest listener base and wide coverage as well XM /sirus is national.

Reply from Bjelleklang (only the issues addressed to me)
I haven't jockeyed/coerced anyone into anything. As can be clearly seen here I asked the reviewer for his opinion, in case he had spotted something I hadn't. As for mentioning the previous articles not created by User:WinsnerBf1942; I think it's pretty relevant when the previous articles were deleted for the subject being non-notable, and this one is nominated for the same reason.

As for the arguments listed in 3.; I can only repeat what I said on your talkpage: Touring for 15 years and playing 2400 shows while generating no mainstream media attention sounds unlikely. Thats 160 concerts per year on average, not including the time spent traveling to each location. This is more than most other artists, and he did it apparently without generating any press about it. Unlike the other artists you mentioned, who were very high-profile, and whos notability is undisputed.

From what I've found in the references, he's worked for six different companies in Florida and Georgia since 1996, working hard to build a customer base and customer relations. And my impression from those references, is that his job have been the exact opposite of what you mention; "other upper management positions do not require the position holder to be there all the time".

I can agree to it being possible to do all the things mentioned in the article; but I can't agree to him being notable without having more sources that can confirm it.

What do you mean by "This statements are not with genuine merit, it’s assumptions of negativity, i believe judgment should not be negativity passed."? I don't assume anything, I only read what is in the article and in the references. And they fail the criteria set in the policies and guidelines for notability, biographies of living people, musicians as well as the guideline for reliable sources as I (and four others) see them.

As for IRC, we've chatted twice. Yesterday for about an hour, and today for around 40 minutes. Yesterday you asked me for my opinion, and I told you quite clearly that I didn't know at that moment, as I didn't have time to check the sources. I still gave you some advice as to what you could to to improve it, that I would look into it, but that I thought it looked exaggerated. I also told you I would comment on the AfD if the sources didn't give me any answers to the concerns I had.

We also chatted today, and my advice to you was the same as yesterday, both on IRC, in my reply to you on your talkpage (linked above) as well as in this AfD. Find good sources that can confirm his notability! That's all it takes for me to reconsider my opinion. And my opinion is not about being a deletionist as you call it, it's about abiding with the policies and guidelines we have here. I'm not trying to bite your head off, and if that's the way you feel I apologise.

"I was am hopeful User_talk:Bjelleklang would take my points into consideration, he failed to reply but rather keeps going back to the page and jockeying more negative points that could be causes impartial judging."

As stated above, I merely asked Rcsprinter123 for his opinion. Nothing else. If you or anyone else wants to file a complaint on me over at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, feel free to do so.

To sum up; all you need to do is to provide references that are reliable enough to indicate notability. The references currently in the article doesn't establish him as a notable artist; not as a notable executive, and not as a notable radio personality. Bjelleklang -  talk 14:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the term deletionist and inclusionist are. History shows I vote keep more.  But these keeps tend to be based on what I see as compliance with policy, where either the sources were identified by others to pass notability, the topic met notability criteria, or where I had access to sources that could assist in proving GNG.  If the user could identify sources from newspapers using USA based paywall sources that I don't have access to from newspapers like the Orlando Sentinel, local television stations, etc., I would happily vote keep myself.  Rather than work to improve sourcing, we get walls of text. --LauraHale (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Point 15 was addressed to me on my Talkpage, I will also reply here: I don't really care about the distribution or inclusion of Pool and Spa magazine. Your points simply reinforce the fact that he is a large fish within his pond not that any particular fish within that pond is particularly significant within the wider world. The Orlando Sentinel article does not cover the subject in depth, but covers his place of work in depth - this may speak to that place of work's notability but not to his notability. I can't see the Ink19 article so can't comment on it but a distribution in only the 10's of thousands does not suggest a significant publication outwith it's (then) geographical area/core audience and again doesn't speak to notability though perhaps will confirm facts. As for radio interviews - For press reviews we look as well as the strength of the source, we also look as the strength of the journalist, and that of the editor. I don't see anything significant about the various stations/shows/hosts even if some of the slots may have been syndicated nationwide. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I read through deletion policy for notability and if ink19 and a lot of other music genre publications were covering him, I think it could be used for notability... but standing next to the Orlando Sentinel, the two do not notability make. --LauraHale (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)