Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Karma

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The result was nomination withdrawn after additional sourcing added to article. Nominator requests early close. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Karma

Fish Karma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. Fails the General notability guideline in WP:N and the specifics in WP:MUSIC. Not at all happy about the copyvio status of this article either - see discussion page - we do not normally simply copy wholesale, even with permission. Springnuts (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator, article now well sourced. Springnuts (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As this artists is still active and has releases spanning 15 years and connections to Mojo Nixon & Jello Biafra, Fish Karma does meet the General notability guideline in WP:N and the specifics in WP:MUSIC. I am satisfied with the copyvio status as the material was originally written by this user and is used here with permission.Powerofshark (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO per WP:SOURCES. Sting_au Talk 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't decided yet if I think it's salvageable. It relies for sourcing primarily on the website of the record label that handles the artist, which violates WP:V. The notability guidelines require objective evidence. The individual may have two albums on notable independent labels, which would meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Alternative Tentacles Records qualifies. I'm not sure about Deep Shag Records, since it seems to pin its notability at least in part on this (and Harlan Ellison). The other two artists wikilinked within the label site are not helpful, since one of those sources back merely to the label and the other leads to a disambig page which does not seem to contain the band referenced. I'm not convinced of the notability of Deep Shag Records, since WP:MUSIC indicates that a major indie label has been around more than a few years (check) and has "a roster of performers, many of which are notable" (not that the article indicates). The individual does seem to have local notability (See here and this Tuscon paper indicates that "Fish Karma has still had an illustrious career, at least here in the Old Pueblo."), but I haven't been able to find anything beyond local coverage, coverage by the record labels and directory style listings. I look forward to seeing if others have more luck, which may help me make up my mind. *In the interests of full disclosure, I have to reveal that I'm currently leaning "delete". :))--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you need a little push ;-) I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. I can understand how the mere promise of reliable references is enough to save an article from speedy delete, but this is an AfD discussion. Shouldn't the article show reliable sources to meet WP:BIO?Sting_au Talk 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point. :D I'll be watching the discussion to see if anybody turns up to whip out reliable sourcing. Sometimes there are dramatic "ta da" moments of 12-page biographies buried in the New York Times, but not that often. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable artist/band. Passes WP:MUSIC with 5 albums, at least some on recognized labels.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've changed my vote as I'm now happy that the article has been reliably sourced. Sting_au Talk 07:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has now been sourced to show notability of this artist. Well done to those involved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:16, 19 December 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.