Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Vogel

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 217.42.252.221 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Vogel

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

The Cristian Vogel page, whilst has some merits, remains un-sourced except for one random link for over 5 years. A wikipedia article should not be original research or content that does not have a source for every assertion.

This page continues to have no one editing it and providing the necessary sources so should be deleted JonnyTSpeed (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no comment on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author keep It's been quite a road to get here - the nominator prodded the article more than once, then speedied it, then attempted to AfD it as an IP, twice, before Finngall helped him along to finish the transclusion. The AfD creation page is also the account's first and only edit. What this indicates is that the nominator is someone who may not really understand the deletion process very well.

This is only because the deletion process is so opaic and every notice that was put on was instantly deleted over some minor technicality. The AfD forces you to register - that does not make the reuest unjustified 217.42.252.221 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

You're not "forced" to register, as I explained at User talk:JonnyTSpeed. As I stated there, there are editors (myself included) who are willing to complete nominations on behalf of anon editors. Providing a rationale for the AfD nomination is not a "technicality"--it's essential. --Finngall ^talk 21:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyTSpeed's rationale is that the article is largely unsourced, but this is not in and of itself a valid reason for deletion; the article has one reliable source, and through the past month, I got no indication that the nominator's attentions had been directed toward a WP:BEFORE effort, which might have dredged up sources such as an extensive interview from Fact (magazine), coverage from XLR8R, and two reviews by Pitchfork Media. Beyond that, the nominator may not be familiar with WP:MUSIC, and Vogel, at minimum, clears the hurdle for releases on noteworthy labels, having issued several albums on the labels Mille Plateaux and Tresor Records. Since deletion is not cleanup, the nominator's comments regarding lack of editing and sourcing are not relevant to AfD, though of course I encourage any interested parties to add sourcing as their time and interests permit. Chubbles (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article has been requesting more sources for 5 years and you've just found them. Go ahead and edit the article rather than just say there's information out there so it should just stay with hundred of words of unsourced original research 217.42.252.221 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

I've already edited the article plenty, thank you. But you're welcome to do work on it if you'd like; in the time you've spent trying to get it deleted, you could have spruced it up quite nicely. Chubbles (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>>> So basically you were the repetitive author of all this unsourced material/ original research. Why didn't you put sources in the article when you wrote it? No wonder you are angrily defending your handy work [[[Special:Contributions/217.42.252.221|217.42.252.221]] (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC for notable label releases, also passes WP:GNG. with the reliable sources identified above as well as the allmusic bio which is rs.It would be best if the author can add these sources to the article and any other rs available. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the Gnews results alone clearly indicate a notable musician, with PopMatters (to choose but one) hailing him as "a superb artist of musique concrète and a notable remixer of various Radiohead and Thom Yorke tracks". With so many true problem articles elsewhere, it's hard to understand the obsession with deleting this article by all means necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ all unsourced content. After over 5 years of notices someone starts qualifying the content [[[Special:Contributions/217.42.252.221|217.42.252.221]] (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]
- You have indicated above that you registered an account as JonnyTSpeed in order to pursue this nomination. You cannot !vote twice. You have already registered your delete !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is obvious to anyone who takes the time to do a Google search. Nomination puts forward no valid argument for deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2016 (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.