- 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. there seems to be a consensus that the article doesn't quite meet the GNG but i am going to userfy and the author is welcome to contact me for a sympathetic consideration of voiding the close as and if better sources come along. Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Phatchance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no real notability shown. Main independent source about subject is of questionable reliability, some others are not about him, only other independent reliable source that mentions Phatchance has trivial coverage. nothing else sugests satisfying wp:music Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There are five external sources in what is, for all intents and purposes, a short article. On top of this one of these sources is the biggest street press in Australia, if nothing else the article should remain for his work as executive producer on a verified, nationally distributed release. Two of the other sources are internet transcriptions of popular Australian street press. I edited the original article you contested and provided a range of verified third parties for all statements, including interviews with media, video interviw and artist pages, all of which are popular and well visited. Your original contest has been fixed so I fail to comprehende why you have taken this to discussion? Chance_Waters was personal libel and the article was deleted five years ago, I see no relevance to the current situation. page clearly meets WP:Music as I edited your previous contest and made sure it did. I have been through your user page, you make a habit of contesting articles that generally shouldn't be contested, you're overly aggressive in your editing and you put unnecessary strain on the system by suggesting articles with relevance. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) — Stevezimmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WP:ADHOM and WP:FAITH... C: DreamHaze (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- keep seems to satisify wp:music well sourced.Blazinthrough (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC) — Blazinthrough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. I have reviewed the sources identified. No reliable source provides anything close to the threshold of significant coverage. Beyond that, I have made a good faith search for other sources, but was unable to identify anything that gives rise to the presumption of the subject's meeting BIO or GNG. Bongomatic 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fair criticism but I believe due to coverage in media artist does meet wp:music, I am willing to assist in editing the article further if it will satisfy your criticisms, I believed I'd already addressed user:Duffbeerforme issues with the original article, this is why I removed the prod notice. I'll save a copy of the article, if deletion is decided then when I find some time I'll edit and recreate, a quick google search does turn up quite a few third party references/mentions/publications. Remember that the artist is also in a (dead) band that should also be searched.Stevezimmy (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- One reference is in Hip-Hop Sphere. That website cites Nurcha Records as an "affiliate", Nurcha Records being the former label of Natural Causes, so that reference is clearly not independent.
- Moreover, it seems possible that there is a connection between Stevezimmy and the author ("Steve Zee") of that article. A little clarity would be helpful. Bongomatic 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am the author of that article, I blog and review for a number of Australian hip-hop websites, it's my area of interest, I covered that event hence why I took the time to work on this WP Article. It is not one of the reviews or interviews I was talking about. Nurcha Records as a label ceased operation years ago, there was a publicity affiliation between that website (which I review for [non profit]) and that record label (whose artists I take an interest in) this is a small genre. Please check the 3d world, ozradio and music feeds reviews by different third parties. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not that it's relevant to the thrust of the discussion, but the article states "closure of operations in early 2009", which doesn't seem to be "years ago". Bongomatic 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- So far as I know nothing was released on the label after 2007, it was a pretty small operation. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not that it's relevant to the thrust of the discussion, but the article states "closure of operations in early 2009", which doesn't seem to be "years ago". Bongomatic 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am the author of that article, I blog and review for a number of Australian hip-hop websites, it's my area of interest, I covered that event hence why I took the time to work on this WP Article. It is not one of the reviews or interviews I was talking about. Nurcha Records as a label ceased operation years ago, there was a publicity affiliation between that website (which I review for [non profit]) and that record label (whose artists I take an interest in) this is a small genre. Please check the 3d world, ozradio and music feeds reviews by different third parties. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
TentativeDelete. I'm in agreement with Bongomatic in that the sources that are provided don't provide a significant enough coverage of the artist, Chance Waters, to warrant an article on him. The blog entry and other "sources" are simply short pieces of "trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates" (to quote from WP:Music), and the few others which aren't forum posts or other trivial coverage don't seem significant enough to me. I can't see any reason why Phatchance actually is notable. DreamHaze (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I provided a feature article and an interview with the artist from reputable Australian Street Press in my edits, I know you haven't looked at the article since we discussed the initial prod tag, otherwise you would see this. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have, as a matter of fact, reviewed the article as I typed my vote here. But to be thorough, I'll go through them one-by-one. The last source, number 12, appears to be a list of fan reviews of his song, and the source above it, number 11, is self-written by Phatchance. The only awards which make an artist notable enough for an article are major ones, and so number 10 on its own wouldn't make this artist notable enough, as listed at WP:Music. Although the sources about Nurcha Records are good resources for the article should it make it through this discussion, they don't give Phatchance significant cause to have his own article. This brings us to number 7, an article with only 5 very short paragraphs (that's 14 sentences) which even discuss Phatchance's band, Natural Causes. Number 6 wasn't likely to be a reliable source, being a forum, but is unavailable anyways due to the site being down. Number 5 is the band's MySpace, which can't really account for the group's notability as it's a band-published source. Remarkably, number 4 appears to be a legit interview and, although I cannot attest to how reliable OZRadioMAG is, is the only worthwhile source I've gone through so far that supports your cause. Number three is another blog, a band-published source. Number 2 is simply a listing advertising an upcoming concert, not proof of notability. And, lastly, number 1 isn't even an interview with Phatchance, but a band member. This last article would be better used to advocate an article for Mind Over Matter, but not a single band member. None of this seems notable enough to warrant an article. The first guideline to music articles' notability (if it is this guideline that this article is indeed clinging to) is that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", and I honestly don't see that in this situation at all. I don't mean this in a hard-feelings way, I just honestly don't see the article's notability. DreamHaze (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you guys are approaching this from an international perspective and without any scope on the nature of the genre we are dealing with. Ozhiphop.com is one of the largest music websites in Australia, it's the primary website for the genre we are dealing with, has more than 100,000 members and the annual awards are very serious in context. The 3d world mention is relevant to where it is referenced, as are the other articles cited, all of them are contextually placed simply to reference the information that has been put forward, in the case of the 'mention' you're talking about, it's a citation proving that Phatchance was the executive producer on that album. If you visit a page like Australian Hip Hop and have a look through the artists you'll see that in context this article is definitely relevant. Check through half of the artist stubs that currently exist for the genre and you'll see that this is one of the better referenced of those. Ozradio magazine is a physical publication, that is a transcription of that edition. Music Feeds is a direct interview with the artist, that is a also a physical publication, both of those magazines have thousands of copies distributed nationally, in the case of 3d world hundreds of thousands. In reference to unearthed If the hundreds of fan reviews don't illustrate notability in context I don't know what does? That website is one of the most important websites in independent music in Australia, do some background reading on it. For a stub, which is what this article is, it's extremely well referenced and there are much bigger fish to fry, much more easily. I understand why this article has been prod marked, but I feel that deletion is not the answer, a better move would have been to request further expansion or development. Cheers, Steve Stevezimmy (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have, as a matter of fact, reviewed the article as I typed my vote here. But to be thorough, I'll go through them one-by-one. The last source, number 12, appears to be a list of fan reviews of his song, and the source above it, number 11, is self-written by Phatchance. The only awards which make an artist notable enough for an article are major ones, and so number 10 on its own wouldn't make this artist notable enough, as listed at WP:Music. Although the sources about Nurcha Records are good resources for the article should it make it through this discussion, they don't give Phatchance significant cause to have his own article. This brings us to number 7, an article with only 5 very short paragraphs (that's 14 sentences) which even discuss Phatchance's band, Natural Causes. Number 6 wasn't likely to be a reliable source, being a forum, but is unavailable anyways due to the site being down. Number 5 is the band's MySpace, which can't really account for the group's notability as it's a band-published source. Remarkably, number 4 appears to be a legit interview and, although I cannot attest to how reliable OZRadioMAG is, is the only worthwhile source I've gone through so far that supports your cause. Number three is another blog, a band-published source. Number 2 is simply a listing advertising an upcoming concert, not proof of notability. And, lastly, number 1 isn't even an interview with Phatchance, but a band member. This last article would be better used to advocate an article for Mind Over Matter, but not a single band member. None of this seems notable enough to warrant an article. The first guideline to music articles' notability (if it is this guideline that this article is indeed clinging to) is that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", and I honestly don't see that in this situation at all. I don't mean this in a hard-feelings way, I just honestly don't see the article's notability. DreamHaze (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep For a stub this article is indeed very well referenced and I don't think it should deleted. This article, a stub, should be expended instead. It seems to me that it has benefited from additional reliable and verifiable sources since being nominated for deletion to satisfy WP:Music and it should not be overlooked. Bech86 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note:This user's opinion was solicited in this manner. Perhaps not in direct contravention of WP:CANVAS, but close. Bongomatic 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It does not make my opinion less valid. And definitely not WP:CANVAS. Bech86 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. What makes the opinion lack validity is the fact that you have not (nor has the author) identified any citations that satisfy the notability criteria. Bongomatic 09:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- In regards to WP:CANVAS, I actually do see a bit of a resemblence to the description of Votestacking, as you are actually one of two people that were notified by Stevezimmy who were selected from Duffebeerforme's talk page. They're the only two people that Steve decided to notify, and both of them are users that would have perfect reason to be upset with Duff. I'm not saying that your opinion, Bech86, is at all swayed by this--I have no reason to believe that you would let personal feelings bias your vote here--but I do believe that contacting only the two people who would have every reason to be upset with Duff to this AfD doesn't exactly look good on Stevezimmy's part. DreamHaze (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, apologies if you felt I was trying to 'rig' a vote, I contacted those two people because I saw on user:duffbeerforme 's page that he had been excessively prod notifying articles they had worked hard on, that in my opinion did not deserve the notification. Since bongomatic and yourself have conversed with duffbeerforme and found this page either through duffbeerforme or through tracking his user page I don't see any difference in what I did (reaching out to people who might have had an interest in weighing into the debate re deleting an article I obviously feel warrants inclusion on Wikipedia) to what has occurred with both of you automatically. I didn't request that they vote either way, infact, one of the parties I contacted is an administrator on Wikipedia! I simply feel that user:duffbeerforme is being overzealous in his approach to deleting articles and didn't know what the procedure was in terms of drawing people into the debate, I asked for a character reference and input, obviously bech86 shares my more liberal view on independent artists that should be included in Wikipedia so that users opinion is valid. I'm sorry if you feel I was trying to rig a vote, it was not my intention, apologies, I don't feel user:Bech86 would vote against their honest opinion either way.Stevezimmy (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I found Phatchance through patrolling the Recent Changes by New Users, where I saw your edits to the Phatchance page and proceeded to your page to tell you how you can work with Duff and what the PROD tag meant. You'll see that on your user talk page. I actually had never even heard of Duff before this article, and only posted on his page because you neglected to tell him that you removed his PROD tag and wanted to be polite and let him know. I also don't presume to make assumptions about what your actual intentions are, nor am I making accusations--I just wanted to make you aware of how it looks. As I said before, I have no reason to believe that Bech86 would let his personal opinion sway his vote at all, no do I think that the other party would. C: DreamHaze (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, apologies if you felt I was trying to 'rig' a vote, I contacted those two people because I saw on user:duffbeerforme 's page that he had been excessively prod notifying articles they had worked hard on, that in my opinion did not deserve the notification. Since bongomatic and yourself have conversed with duffbeerforme and found this page either through duffbeerforme or through tracking his user page I don't see any difference in what I did (reaching out to people who might have had an interest in weighing into the debate re deleting an article I obviously feel warrants inclusion on Wikipedia) to what has occurred with both of you automatically. I didn't request that they vote either way, infact, one of the parties I contacted is an administrator on Wikipedia! I simply feel that user:duffbeerforme is being overzealous in his approach to deleting articles and didn't know what the procedure was in terms of drawing people into the debate, I asked for a character reference and input, obviously bech86 shares my more liberal view on independent artists that should be included in Wikipedia so that users opinion is valid. I'm sorry if you feel I was trying to rig a vote, it was not my intention, apologies, I don't feel user:Bech86 would vote against their honest opinion either way.Stevezimmy (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- In regards to WP:CANVAS, I actually do see a bit of a resemblence to the description of Votestacking, as you are actually one of two people that were notified by Stevezimmy who were selected from Duffebeerforme's talk page. They're the only two people that Steve decided to notify, and both of them are users that would have perfect reason to be upset with Duff. I'm not saying that your opinion, Bech86, is at all swayed by this--I have no reason to believe that you would let personal feelings bias your vote here--but I do believe that contacting only the two people who would have every reason to be upset with Duff to this AfD doesn't exactly look good on Stevezimmy's part. DreamHaze (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. What makes the opinion lack validity is the fact that you have not (nor has the author) identified any citations that satisfy the notability criteria. Bongomatic 09:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It does not make my opinion less valid. And definitely not WP:CANVAS. Bech86 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note:This user's opinion was solicited in this manner. Perhaps not in direct contravention of WP:CANVAS, but close. Bongomatic 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article has since been edited by a third party, hopefully this satisfies some of the criticisms you guys have?Stevezimmy (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Did I miss something? I don't see any additional references that provide evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, or any facts that give rise to another reason to presume notability per GNG or MUSICBIO. Bongomatic 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I meant more that a third party with awards that specialises in Australian Music would take the time to edit and expand the article indicates more viability for the article itself? I understand your argument, I just disagree and believe it's a contextual issue. Stevezimmy (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Did I miss something? I don't see any additional references that provide evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, or any facts that give rise to another reason to presume notability per GNG or MUSICBIO. Bongomatic 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, so, I have taken on board the criticisms levelled towards this article and attempted to address them. I've just expanded the section on Natural Causes to include their radio success and a little bit on their release history. I have also furthered the referencing and provided third parties that demonstrate regular radio appearances for interviews and guest spots. This combined with Dan Arndt's contributions to the article mean it now has nearly four times the references it had when it was initially prod marked and is twice the length. Hopefully this is a compromise all of you are happy with. Stevezimmy (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- The criticisms have been about wp:music and the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not about the article size and total references count. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I made a pretty big effort to add further independent coverage to satisfy your criticisms, or do radio interviews and proof of radio charting not count towards this? I sat down and had a big read through the wp:music article, it's very subjective and I think this squeezes in across four different categories, even if you think the independent coverage isn't 'notable' enough (this is a very subjective statement; I've already given my reasons and don't want to repeat myself) then the extra contributions and published works I've added coupled with the radio play and his bands success warrant inclusion? Really I felt the article was fine as a stub, as most in the genre are, but when you prod marked this article there were only a handful of sources that showed independent coverage (an issue I have remedied) I don't believe you'd have prod marked if you found the article in its current state. I've seen a lot of the articles you approve of and there is often less proof of notability than in this article, I appreciate your stand point but we'll have to agree to disagree and let an administrator make their decision :) Stevezimmy (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- The criticisms have been about wp:music and the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not about the article size and total references count. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- For disclosure, I was asked to comment. This has in no one influenced my opinion, though. The issue here is are there two reliable sources that discuss this person at length and are independent of the subject. An analysis of the sourcing follows (using ref numbering as of this revision
Appears likely to meet RS requirements and is about the subject
Possibly RS, but isn't about the subject directly- Not significant coverage
- Community contributed content -> not a reliable source
- Not sure what this is exactly but it is either not independent or not reliable & in any case isn't significant coverage
- Unlikely to be meet RS & not significant coverage
- Not significant coverage
- Not sure of the significance of the work itself, but being published in it doesn't establish notability
- Not independent of the subject
Not sure, can't evaluate as it is 404- Not independent
- Not independent
- Not independent
- Seems to be a legit review of a Cd by one of his bands
- Not significant coverage
- Not significant coverage
- Not significant coverage
- Award is not sufficient to establish notability
- Not independent
- Fan reviews don't establish notability
- Currently down, but appears to be a forum post which wouldn't meet RS
- So basically we are looking at 1.5 sources, at best, right now. I do sympathize with Stevezimmy as he has obviously put a lot of work into this. Unfortunately, the subject doesn't appear to meet Wikipedias standards, so I'll have to say weak delete. I would require either several additional reliable sources reviewing CDs by bands he has been a part of, or one additional reliable source that talks about the subject in depth to change my mind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi ThaddeusB, I see no reason to conclude that OZRadio.com is an RS. See its "About us" page. Bongomatic 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The website in general is certainly not a RS, but an interview published in their magazine seems reasonably likely to meet RS. In any case it is a rather moot point, as I doubt anything else will surface and it certainly isn't enough by itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict—was in the process of replacing my comment with: I see no reason to conclude that OZRadio Magazine is an RS. It appears to have had only one issue (see its main page). The associated website is certainly not an RS (see its "About us" page). Bongomatic 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for taking the time to do such a thorough review Thaddeus, I'm still new to this all, so it looks like it could be a case of wait and rebuild. Appreciate your help :) Stevezimmy (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict—was in the process of replacing my comment with: I see no reason to conclude that OZRadio Magazine is an RS. It appears to have had only one issue (see its main page). The associated website is certainly not an RS (see its "About us" page). Bongomatic 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The website in general is certainly not a RS, but an interview published in their magazine seems reasonably likely to meet RS. In any case it is a rather moot point, as I doubt anything else will surface and it certainly isn't enough by itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Number 10 is an article on Nurcha Records with a 5 short paragraph section on Natural Cause (Phatchances old band), primarily quotes from Mr. Chance on Music Feeds website [1] and maybe in the mag. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah this is spot on, site isn't 404 for me but it's a transcription from Music Feeds which is a free Street Press distributed throughout NSW. The article was a feature article on Nurcha Records, the artists old record label, there's a five paragraph interview with Phatchance which was also in the physical publication. I believe it has between a ten and twenty thousand copy distribution, though this might have increased since the time the article was released. Ozradio mag had about a 20,000 copy distribution nationally in that first edition. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the radio interviews be counted as reliable sources? Just because there aren't audio transcriptions of the interviews themselves doesn't mean they didn't occur, they're big broadcasts and the shows themselves are saying they happened; if an artist appears on Oprah and there's no video recording of the appearance does that make it useless? What about unscanned newspaper articles etc.? I could use some clarification here :) Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Most radio interviews like this seem to fall into "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" which is listed in wp:music as not counting towards criteria #1. Without a reliable source showing otherwise they don't help much. Newspapers are generally good, especially big ones like The Age and The Australian. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah this is spot on, site isn't 404 for me but it's a transcription from Music Feeds which is a free Street Press distributed throughout NSW. The article was a feature article on Nurcha Records, the artists old record label, there's a five paragraph interview with Phatchance which was also in the physical publication. I believe it has between a ten and twenty thousand copy distribution, though this might have increased since the time the article was released. Ozradio mag had about a 20,000 copy distribution nationally in that first edition. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the radio interviews be counted as reliable sources? Just because there aren't audio transcriptions of the interviews themselves doesn't mean they didn't occur, they're big broadcasts and the shows themselves are saying they happened; if an artist appears on Oprah and there's no video recording of the appearance does that make it useless? What about unscanned newspaper articles etc.? I could use some clarification here :) Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi ThaddeusB, I see no reason to conclude that OZRadio.com is an RS. See its "About us" page. Bongomatic 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- A closing argument for why I feel this article still warrants inclusion I understand the arguments put forward here, but I think regardless of the lack of large scale sources dealing with the subject, the sheer number of additional sources I managed to dig up that talk about the artist in one fashion or another show there's merit to inclusion. I went to this website [2] and had a dig through the page hit statistics for phatchance and this wikipage is getting hundreds of hits every month, regardless of this discussion there are obviously people turning to Wikipedia for information on the topic and that is the purpose of Wikipedia itself, to provide information to those people searching for it. Removing this particular topic doesn't give anything to Wikipedia, it doesn't clean up the site, free up a search term or remove wp:vanity or other forms of vandalism, it simply limits the information available on the website to people who want it, regardless of arguments in regards to wp:music or wp:bio I've worked hard on an article dealing with an artist that has worked on nationally distributed releases, gained national exposure on radio and through street press and who obviously tours the country regularly, as someone involved in the genre I know the article warrants conclusion and it seems silly to take it down rather than continue to build on it, but this is a group decision so I'm happy to accept the outcome either way. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep The sources and verifiable content seem to me to be enough to warrant inclusion, maybe. If it's deleted it can be userfied and worked on there. Additional reliable sources with substantial coverage would really help. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will strongly encourage userfication if this article is called for deletion. Stevezimmy has shown a hell of a lot of good faith and has worked hard to make this a good article. After his effort I will remember Phatchance and if I see any coverage in reliable sources I will work to improve the article. Based on what I've seen there is a damn good chance it will be coming. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Bongomatic 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will strongly encourage userfication if this article is called for deletion. Stevezimmy has shown a hell of a lot of good faith and has worked hard to make this a good article. After his effort I will remember Phatchance and if I see any coverage in reliable sources I will work to improve the article. Based on what I've seen there is a damn good chance it will be coming. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per ThaddeusB's assessment of the sources provided. Userfy the content; no prejudice against re-creation if and when better sources can be found.--Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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.