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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kachejian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of an "award-winning" person but short on independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years.These contributions have been referenced in independent multiple newspaper articles that have been cited in the article.Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Than You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO, which apparently continues at Beneath an Autumn Moon. Puffery, multiple links to self-published site selling piano lessons, passing mentions of student awards, iTunes/Spotify/YouTube/DeepDiscount links as sources, one academic citation that supports the general claim that people moved to suburbs, all from a page creator with a username that matches the subject of the article but has no COI declared. Ticks every box for self-promotion against the interests and policy of the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had read the article first, then this long AfD comment and then returned to trawl through the refs looking for notability. Plenty of mentions, plenty of advertisments, several minor achievements but nothing close to notability. A search revealed nothing better. I am sure he is a perfectly competent musician, but that just isn't enough on Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brian Kachejian utilizes newspaper articles as sources.The multiple newspaper articles feature multiple full page stories on Brian Kachejian.These are full page stories not just mentions, that are not autobiographical but written from journalists as newspaper stories about the topic Brian Kachejian.These newspaper articles also contain interviews with other people in the music business about the work of the artist. Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years..Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited as proof of album existence.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Thank You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wholesale puffery. And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? --Calton | Talk 06:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was supposed to be a forum where editors look at the sources provided in the article and decide if the article meets wikipedia guidelines or not.Instead the forum is being utilized to throw insults at me. Asking "And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton. Are you implying that because I am a musician I do not have the capability of excelling in the fields of academia? Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006? If so, than you did not read through the article which explains all of that. In the end, it does not matter because the insult is completely unwarranted and unprofessional.Calling my work puffery is also insulting. This was an article about a musician, a recording artist and an educator. A human being who has worked hard to contribute to society in a positive and professional manner through his skills as a composer,performer and an educator. Every sentence in the article is true and backed up with over 26 citations of secondary sources and primary sources.If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that. However, at least be professional about it. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton

Here, let me quote the text:

Winner of the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University, New York for the work entitled "Liberation of the Soul."

So, to repeat the question, how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"?

Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006?

I said no such thing nor could that be possibly read into what I wrote. But as long as you brought it up, it's an undergraduate student award given at a single university's undergraduate conference, received when you were 45. Using this to claim you are "award-winning" or that this demonstrates any form of notability is TEXTBOOK puffery.

Just about every sentence in the article is similarly inflated, and it's not worth the effort to detail even a fraction of it all.

If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that.

Yes, that's why you've been badgering the editors discussing this on this page. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page has been updated to further meet Wikipedia guidelines. Any issues that have been brought up in this forum have been professionally addressed on the page. Thank You Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you must have a very poor opinion of the critical faculties of most Wikipedia editors if you really believe that is going to work. May I reiterate that what is required is indpendent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful. This hole is just being dug deeper.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• You've got to be joking: store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And what the hell is "professionally addressed"? --Calton | Talk 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like the subject has done some great work, but the sources in the article do not meet the standard for reliable sources and so the subject fails the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 12:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines state that the creator of a webpage can look to improve the webpage proposed for deleted in order to defend its merits. When I notified this forum that changes were made to the Wikipedia page, one of the editors “Calton,” who has insulted me repeatedly went to the Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page and deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability. This has hurt my defense of the page and it seems criminal that a Wikipedia editor who is casting a vote as a judge would change a page that is being defended by its creator. I do not want to read any more insults thrown at me so this is my last view of this page. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability

Your "improvements" were nothing of the sort and demonstrated nothing about notability. Store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And to quote above, "May I reiterate that what is required is independent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful". --Calton | Talk 13:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is essentially no substantial coverage of this subject by independent, reliable sources to indicate notability, offered or to be found. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.