Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. All sources in the article are either very poor quality (i.e. Myspace), have trivial or no mentions of the subject, or are primary sources. A google search does not yield any higher quality sources. SnottyWong spout 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is well done and informative. WP Notability Doctrine falls apart for underground music. Sufficient releases for notability. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any independent, secondary sources with substantial coverage of this individual? All I've been able to find are primary sources, trivial mentions, and myspace/facebook pages. It doesn't matter how well done the article is if the subject isn't notable. SnottyWong chat 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of Wikipedia notability doctrine in the first place and note that it is particularly unworkable with regards to underground music. My own approach would be to let well done material stand and let the users read or not read based upon their searches. A "non-important" topic or band won't be searched and will sit unloved in a cul de sac in the netherland of English Wikipedia's 3.1 million articles. Where is the problem in that? On the other hand, the information will be THERE for those who desire it. Obviously, this is a radical reorientation from the way things have been on Wikipedia. But the concept is worth some thought, is it not? Carrite (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The major problem with your argument is that the subject of this article is a living person and this article will be one of the first hits when someone googles the name "Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen". Since any goober with axe to grind against the subject can edit the article and add unsourced but credible sounding crap to it, we can't let it "sit unloved (and unwatched) in a cul de sac in the netherland of English Wikipedia's 3.1 million articles". It needs to meet WP:N or it needs to go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your fear is one of inadequate BLP sourcing — which may well be a valid complaint — but you cite notability doctrine as the cure for this problem..... Which doesn't logically follow. If the fear is about sourcing on a BLP, the argument is one of sourcing, not notability ("WP:N") ... Carrite (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The major problem with your argument is that the subject of this article is a living person and this article will be one of the first hits when someone googles the name "Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen". Since any goober with axe to grind against the subject can edit the article and add unsourced but credible sounding crap to it, we can't let it "sit unloved (and unwatched) in a cul de sac in the netherland of English Wikipedia's 3.1 million articles". It needs to meet WP:N or it needs to go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of Wikipedia notability doctrine in the first place and note that it is particularly unworkable with regards to underground music. My own approach would be to let well done material stand and let the users read or not read based upon their searches. A "non-important" topic or band won't be searched and will sit unloved in a cul de sac in the netherland of English Wikipedia's 3.1 million articles. Where is the problem in that? On the other hand, the information will be THERE for those who desire it. Obviously, this is a radical reorientation from the way things have been on Wikipedia. But the concept is worth some thought, is it not? Carrite (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any independent, secondary sources with substantial coverage of this individual? All I've been able to find are primary sources, trivial mentions, and myspace/facebook pages. It doesn't matter how well done the article is if the subject isn't notable. SnottyWong chat 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very poor quality sources, all of which are varying levels of unreliable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and Ginceng ^^. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nominator, no independent coverage in reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - BLP disaster waiting to happen. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (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.