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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Romanowski

[edit]

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

Not notable Uberaccount (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LuckyKid (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the risk of being the contrarian here, I'm finding several good sources, for example Billboard, Billboard, Billboard, Electronic Musician and Tape Disc Business and Mix. - Mr X 01:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here are three more references, all of which are currently used in the article: Michale Romanowski credits at Allmusic, article about Romanowski in Mix (magazine), "Tape Project" article on Positive Feedback website. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this page appears to be self promotion, given that author has made other pages about the same topic, which have been speedily deleted. See Michael Romanowski Mastering. Uberaccount (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That doesn't really matter. If the subject of the article meets the criteria for notability, the article should be kept. If the article reads like a promotion, it should be edited so that it's neutral and encyclopedic. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject as received mention from multiple non-primary reliable sources, however it is my opinion that those multiple mentions do not add up to equal significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Therefore, not passing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, the article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - not notable. Also, this looks like self-promotional material. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete - Google News archives provided several results in the first two pages (mostly from Mix) with the "Music Indistry News Network" talking the most about him. Some of these articles mention the artists he has worked with including a few notable ones. I have to say, he has received more attention than other mixers and mastering producers and an article could be written but there doesn't seem to be anything different than any other person in this line of work (no awards, no notable partnerships/endorsements, etc.). I was a little on the fence at first but I think it would still be a stub (not there's anything wrong with stubs). I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Although the delete opinions are in greater quantity the majority of them are very weak arguments. Please focus on the merits of the subject and the validity of the sources not the page's creator. Thank you, J04n(talk page) 10:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE; coverage is routine or promotional. Miniapolis 14:00, 12 March 2013 (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.