Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DM Ashura (2nd nomination)

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. --Coredesat 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DM Ashura

DM Ashura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The subject of this article does not meet WP:MUSIC. Under the criteria for musicians and ensembles, he could meet number 10, but I disagree with the notion that any of the appearances in games were notable enough to require more than a passing notion in the respective articles, especially considering the great amount of minor artists that are featured in things such as Dance Dance Revolution. The article is not referenced properly, with most of the references being to trivial web sources. The article's subject has been actively editing the article. Voretus^talk 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I closed the last AfD, see my notes on the debate in the grey box at the top there. If I may suggest, participants in this debate should consider whether the concerns about verifiability from the first debate have been addressed yet. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe that this article DOES meet #10 under the criteria for musicians and ensembles, and we've already gone through this once before. It's been considered for deletion and kept once already, there should be enough to that page to keep it from deletion again. Bkid 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment the consensus wasn't to keep; there was none. Voretus^talk 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Edit: The last time I checked, when it was last nominated for deletion, the majority of users DID agree to keep the page.Bkid 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As is often stated around here, AfD is not a vote - it's the weight and quality of the "arguments" that lend to a decision to keep or delete.B.Wind 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To keep it straight, though, the overall consensus was no consensus, while the consensus of the notability argument was keep. The point which was not refuted by the past AfD was the availability of verifiable sources. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. This falls under the guidelines of Speedy_keep #3, the end of sentence 2: "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". There was a split consensus for the last nomination, where notability was majority keep and verifiability was majority delete. This has been settled though, since {{unreliable}} has been removed and all of the sources ARE, in fact, nontrivial. Bkid 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thus by your own account, Speedy Keep #3 cannot apply as there was no consensus one way or the other ("strongly rejected" requires consensus, which was clearly lacking). B.Wind 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Incorrect, There was consensus on the point of contention on which you nominated the article was nominated, therefore speedy keep is applicable. Beyond that, WP:MUSIC is not a policy. As it states in the article itself it is, in fact, a rule of thumb guideline. Notability has been asserted and the subject himself has been proven to be notable in the prior AfD. Pumeleon 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The extent of my own editing of this page has been formatting, adding sources, combatting edit wars and disruption, and actually removing unsourced information. I have not been contributing new material to the article. I feel like I'm justified by WP:AUTO in doing this, as I'm not violating anything in said guidelines. Bill Shillito 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you'd be justified only if you were making simple edits to fix vandalism - corrections and more sizable contributions from the subject of the article are more properly put on the article's talk page, and then a third party adapts them to the article. B.Wind 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do so when I'm already a Wikipedia contributor, and I can just make the edits myself? I reiterate, I have not contributed any new material to the article.Bill Shillito 07:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see the point here, although the article was not created by him, and the guidelines set in WP:AUTO don't specifically limit to reverting vandalism—simple factual errors could also be edited. While perhaps some of his actions may be questionable, this wasn't a reason for the AfD it was not an issue during the past AfD, and the WP:AUTO guideline doesn't make a reason for deletion in itself. Worst case, there's always the edit log. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - seems all right to me (Liveforever22 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Strothra 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the notability claim was supported by the previous AfD, so unless there is a specific point, I don't think the reason "per WP:MUSIC" is satisfied. Could you perhaps justify your claim a bit clearer? B.Wind does make some good points regarding notability, and maybe something he said could be used to clarify your point. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's go through the qualifications of WP:MUSIC: not close on #2 through #6, #8, #11, and #12; falls short on #10 (as it appears to be his "only claim" - and he creates music for software, which many would consider less than "notable" per the description); while some people could argue about the applicability of #7, his work is not representative of a specific city, particularly his native New York City. This leaves #9 (won or placed in a major music competition) and #1 (subject of reliable, independent coverage).

Some would argue that his winning Konami's music competition is notable enough, but others would counter that it is not unlike the jingle contests of the 1950s and 1960s and therefore not "major enough" to satisfy #9; regarding #1, triviality is in the eye of the beholder. Almost all of the links provided are not independent of the subject and do not exhibit notoriety beyond that of a limited audience of "the beat game community", and the one that could have worked if the article originated in something a bit more circulated than a college newspaper. It's a very close call - weak delete unless/until notability beyond the beat game community is better established via WP:MUSIC #1 or #9. B.Wind 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as before. Please stop with the renominations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - A consensus to keep the article on the point of notability was to Keep and therefore cannot be renominated on this point. The article does have proper references, and they are non-trivial in nature. They are, however, specialized, but seen by a wide variety of people in the Bemani Community. This does not lend to the sources' triviality. The subject editing the article is not a point on which you may nominate an article for deletion. Pumeleon 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and Amendment - The closing admin placed {{unreliable}} on the page with instructions to remove it once the issue had been handled. This was part of the decision and a consensus was reached on the talk page that the issue had been resolved, therefore, the argument that the sources are trivial or otherwise not appropriate holds no water, therefore my Speedy Keep is applicable. Pumeleon 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This again? This article fits WP:MUSIC. What's wrong? Sharkface217 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Why must we keep going back to WP:MUSIC? As previously stated by Pumeleon, WP:MUSIC is not a policy. As it states in the article itself, it is a guideline. Bkid 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per Bkid. This is a notable person, it fits guidelines, and it has sources. ~ EdBoy^[c] 16:28, 18 December 2006 (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.