Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different fur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per consensus. Good improvement, though there're still some self-published sources that need to be replaced.PeaceNT 13:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different fur

Different fur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

While many notable people may have recorded at this studio, that doesn't in and of itself make the studio notable. The only reference in the article is the only media reference on the studio's official website. A single media reference isn't enough for WP:CORP. IrishGuy talk 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep as long as further sources are added. Searching "Different Fur" + Studio returns 10000 hits, all of which appear to be about this subject on a quick scan. Whilst most, if not all, may not feature the studio as subject a good number meet 'If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.' Nuttah68 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BIG isn't a valid argument. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is what counts as evidence for notability. I don't believe this is the case. Subdolous 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Subdolous. Chris! ct 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. There are some references out there, but perhaps the authors of the articles could clean this up? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • keep references appear to be strong and establish notability. Artw 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This studio is important, and has been covered referenced several times in Mix magazine, including at least one feature article. If that's not WP:N enough for a studio, I don't know what ever would be. Torc2 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up Notability is established - the article just needs some work Magus05 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I took the first swipe at cleaning this up. Check it out and see if it's sufficient now. Torc2 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Stronger keep - Different Fur is an iconic studio in Bay Area music history. Even younger musicians speak about it in awe when they get the opportunity to record there. I think Torc 2 has done a nice job on it and in fact, it probably could be expanded and an additional article opened on Patrick Gleeson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiliberto (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Amply notable. older ≠ wiser 21:43, 3 November 2007 (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.