Deletion of George Komsky

Comment: Actually, as we keep saying, all we are claiming is that there are no |reliable sources that say he broadcast in the US in that football game.  Find one and we will put it in.  All you have to do is find one single source that says he broadcast on national television.  http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22322028/residents-mourn-boulder-elk-at-candlelight-vigil here is a reliable source that is about an elk vigil.  Right now we have more reliable sources on this page for "Big boy the elk" than we do for Komsky singing the national anthem.  Now find a reliable source to back up your claims, because personal testimony doesn't count for squat here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I checked out the sources, they are not crap. Evidently plenty of that was removed based on looking at the edit history. Argument about notability is fair, but he meets some of the points. Above guy:  states: topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. The sources that exist on the page today prove all that article claims. I researched online, the article is not deceitful about the person being described
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Obvious socks and clear |conflict of interest violation.  Main contributor's user name points to the owner of George Komsky's PR firm and author of several sources within the article.  That wouldn't be a reason for deletion, except that her client doesn't fulfill any of the notability requirements as noted by nominator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: in reading the  I discovered the following (verbatim
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMUSIC)

Comment: I am not any way interested in swaying anybody on anything. As a Bay Area citizen I can speak about this person cause he's well known. Nothing in this space is inaccurate. If anything, the amount of naysayers here is alarming and whatever body oversees this needs to issue some sort of warning. This seems an awful lot like a gang of anonymous nobody's joining together to bring the subject down, and spitefully at that. When it all boils down, George Komsky passes Wikipedia guidelines on  and  as the knowledble person above states. More significantly the organized nature of the people claiming George didn't broadcast to the US in that football game, or that he didn't help charities that he did; is SUSPICIOUS. I'm not the guy who experts in online protocol, but I know a good guy when I see him. I read the articles about George as they arrived, and I m interested in his progress. Don't tear a good guy down just because... This is an honest person, and I don't see any reason to take this piece down. Stop voting based on your syntax. Look at the quality of the article and what he's done (no to mention doing, as I have checkd out th website). Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BAND)

Comment: Fails on so many grounds relating to notability (or lack thereof) , , and . If  existed, they would have been found by now. Also, massive  from the creating editor. All editors "voting" to keep appear to have reg'd accts for the sole purpose of doing so, apparently called to action by Komsky or his agent/publicist. When (if) Mr Komsky does become notable, that will be the time for WP to have an article about him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC||WP:BAND||WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:RS||WP:COI)

Comment: I think he probably just scrapes by  and . There are problems with coi editors and personal attacks at the moment, but I think they can be overcome with a little community attention. His Facebook page has encouraged people to comment and edit which hasn't helped
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BAND)

Comment: I think nominator is clearly wrong and his arguments are misleading. Yes the initial editor seems to be someone connected with the article, but there are numerous editors on the page so clearly people who know this guy have added to it. The nominator is clearly ignoring the fact that his person has cited pretty much all his claims. Awards? He works with a Grammy award winner and looks like sang on US national TV for 23 million people less then four months ago.  Qworty is wrong about  and , he clearly qualifies under both categories. Coffeepusher, i don't know what sock is but it looks like several people have edited this article and I disagree with you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: A quick way to determine an artist's notability is to search for something like "Name interview|review". There is nothing there but two pages of |non-reliable sources, local events and self-generated content, including press releases. A common problem with non-notable subjects is the assertion of notability |by association, which this bio falls into fairly quickly. Everything else is low profile at best. I would consider singing the national anthem at an NFL game as notable, if it had been at least a playoff event, or even better the SuperBowl. For Sunday Night Football games, the anthem and most of the pre-game activities are not even part of the TV broadcast. There is a problematic |reference overload here as well, another indication of grasping for notability. And most of those sources aren't particularly reliable. While it's always distasteful to see someone https://twitter.com/GeorgeKomsky/status/317862858111205378 announcing that they successfully inserted their promotional material into Wikipedia, and I have serious problems with the attitude of the PR person here, COI and all that are never really valid reasons to delete an article. Ultimately, this person fails to meet  and , and that's all that matters. At least |for now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BOMBARD||WP:GNG||WP:MUSICBIO||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: fails  and  - the available sources simply do not meet that threshold. He may one day meet notability guidelines, but he's not now meeting it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: Thank you Barek, upon re-reading my previous vote I noticed you were right in bringing up my lack of reasoning. I am going to defer to an editor above, 'theroadislong' and agree with the analysis that George Komsky narrowly meets  and . Whatever problems that exist can be monitored with community attention. I also think that after reading some of  he meets it, but does not knock it out of the park. The criticism there is not without merit. I would like to see the article stay
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BAND||WP: MUSICIAN)

Comment: Fails , , , , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:NMUSIC||WP:CREATIVE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Per nom, per Qworty. Crap sources. If it's , it can come back later
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: fails  while there are many links, there are none to significant converge by reliable third party sources. The significant coverage is from his PR firm, the "reliable" stuff is trivial mentions in by primary sources that he appeared in their charity functions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42)