Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogdan Raczynski

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. Tone 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Raczynski

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

DELETE. Pretty obvious as to why. Unsourced BLP going back over 2 years now, no evident notability that can be confirmed through reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a) as not yet notable per WP:MUSIC; (b) sources are dubious, except one review from San Francisco; (c) BLP violations and "rumours" galore. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, discussion below. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep Vusys (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion and not a vote, would you please explain? JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets at least 1, 5 and 10 of WP:MUSIC. Vusys (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep He meets point 5 of musician notability - among the other (extremely) notable electronic musicians on Rephlex's roster are Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, µ-Ziq, and Luke Vibert. Apart from that, he recently released a collaboration with Bjork. taras (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
facts Do a google search. Guy works with Aphex Twin's record label Rephlex, has interviews in various magazines, has an entry on allmusic.com, has a 10 year discography noted at discogs.com, worked with Bjork, copious amounts of youtube fan videos, various fan-made myspace accounts, a review on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/vb3n Need I go on? There is a problem with the article in that it needs more sources, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted, what it needs is more sources. Overzealous AFD imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xltronic master (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC) — Xltronic master (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep agree with overzealous nomination, and the indiscriminate tossing out of "unsourced BLP" - there is no contentious info there - there is no deadline either for article improvement, and articles are not deleted for currently being unsourced or for being in a bad shape, but for being unsourceable and for having no potential for improvement, which is "obviously" not the case here. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Over zealous? Hardly. Stuff your personal attacks in a sock dude. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst there are issues regarding unsourced parts of the article, these parts ahould either be sourced or removed until they can be. That leaves only the question of his notability, which can be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in AllMusic Guide, SF Weekly, and Uncut Magazine all found with only a brief internet search. He's released many albums on Rephlex Records, which seems to meet criteria 5 of the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats the deal with the BBC source? It cites Wikipedia and looks like a scraper page. I personally find it unfit for Wikipedia as a cite. [1] I'm confused because ordinarily I would have thought BBC to be a reliable source, but wtf is this? JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanking Dylan for writing this - "no evident notability" made me rage. With a little amount of work, which this deletion marking will certainly bring it, the article can be sufficiently cleaned up. Ventolin (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With a little work, this article will be sufficiently cleaned up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (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.