Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl M. Cox

Carl M. Cox

Carl M. Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• DO NOT DELETE. How dare anyone make assumptions about an entry based on nothing more than a self opinion. "most likey autobiographical vanity"?? Prove it? And if you can't, tread carefully, as litigation is a strong defence!

To all the other bang wagon jumpers, please note that I am totally opposed to this deletion for the reasons outlined below:-

1. Carl M. Cox is a person whom I personally admire for his work both in music and the media, particulary as he comes from my own locality.

2. The information presented in the article is factually correct and accurate, as I obtained clarity of information from Carl M. Cox's PA who herself tells me that she obtained certain back ground information from Carl himself. Furthermore information similar to this is available in the public domain at the website of the BACS.

3. The information provided, I understand has already been a benefit to a couple of researchers, particulary in the USA.

After spending many hours creating this page and indeed updating the associated links pages, I find it to be an utter insult that this article be nominated for deletion without any just reason provided other than the 'scab'reasons mentioned below.

I would seriously urge to consider your actions carefully, before making any final decisions.

Non-notable biography, most likely autobiographical vanity. Contains a bunch of original research, no other reliable sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert for a non-notable small businessman. -- Necrothesp 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising for a person. Contains no reliable references (they are not linked and who know what goes to where). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article contains no verifiable non-trivial sources of information for notability. Warfieldian 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete he may be a splendid fellow and all these "facts" may be true, but for WikiPedia we need 3rd party reliable published sources and this has no refs and no evidence of notability. Put it on his website - I'm sure researchers can find that. I also do not like the unsigned "threatening" header above. NBeale 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Retain I'm a long term reader, new contributer, so please go easy on me. I came to the Carl M. Cox page via a direct link to an interview review on http://www.podcastsoup.net/. How I see it is that I don't think that we should be allowing personal views to define our judgement as to whether or not an item is deleted or not. NBeale, simply because you don't like the manner in which something has been presented- and let's give this person the benefit of the doubt- isn't sufficient reason for deletion, in my opinion. Just looking at the article, and the sources which are noted, it's permissable, upon referring to WP:MUSIC that there is identifiable notability within the given sections:-

Criteria for composers and lyricists For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

"Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble"

"Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria"

"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre"

Also, third party references to a record company, which has been in business for 12 years, could surely be considered as coming under "....Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)..."

The article also states that the subject is/was a writer and provides clear examples of written works that have been published plus their dates and the sources of those publications.TabloidPsyco 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)TabloidPsyco.