- 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) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Phonica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marginally notable remixer that does not meet the requirements of notability in Wikipedia:Notability (music). This article has been speedied and re-created several times, therefore if the article does not meet the requirements, I reccomend salting the name to prevent re-creation without significant guidance. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, nobody has a thought about this after 14 days at AfD? Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). No published works discuss this remixer. No major contests won, no charting works, etc. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (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.