Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (third nomination)
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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prhizzm
Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm, relisted, no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination).
This is an artist whose work (such as it is, there is not much) is mainly self-published. There are no significant external sources in the article. According to the subject (who has edited the article) he has yet to release a single full-length album. Keep arguments at last AfD look suspiciously like WP:IHEARDOFHIM, I see no evidence that this artist meets the primary notability criterion. Even Alkivar, who has seen him perform, advocated deletion. --Guy (Help!) 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarifications: I am the subject of the article, and will thus try to stay out of this debate. Four points need clarification, in case they are not immediately obvious: (1) the Minerals release is an album by wikipedia standards. See the Talk:Prhizzm page. (2) Alkivar may not be neutral in this particular debate because he and I recently fought extensively over his ill-conceived attempt to delete the Zanta article. (3) Seeing or not seeing someone perform is not relevant to assertions of notability on wikipedia. (4) I did not create the article and thus implied assertions of WP:Vanity are weak at best. There, now I will try to stay out of the debate. :) Thanks. BFD1 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) One final clarification: I am not sure what JzG meant about my work being mainly self-published, because of the releases listed on the wikipedia page (which is more or less complete), only one release is self-published. I find JzG's remark in this context rather curious. BFD1 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my arguments at DRV and the second nomination, including the fact that he has been featured in several high-profile media outlets, including Eye Weekly (showing regional notability), the CBC (showing Canadian notability) and the BBC (showing worldwide notability). Also, as Brendan above has noted, he does in fact have a full-length release on a substantial electronic label, and only one of the listed works is actually self-released. Lexicon (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What??? I am disturbed that this article is up for deletion. By the standards proferred above, if wikipedia was around in 1886, a page on [Vincent Van Gogh] would have to be deleted, since he was an unknown painter and had only sold a handful of paintings when he wasn't bouncing in and out of mental institutions. I don't think wikipedia is in the business of determining who is and isn't a significant artist. The point is that it is an open process that permits far greater access to and range of information. I was listening to somfm today, when they played a song by prhizzm. I liked it enough to google the name and found this page. I am sure that as time goes on, prhizzm will release more work, and the wiki page for prhizzm will grow, and that is as it should be, since wikipedia is here TO GROW. Any inaccuracies in the page can be adjusted: that's why this is a communal effort - so the accuracy of a page can be sharpened by group activity. If this page is deleted, I will file a formal complaint. Hwarwick 30 Mar 2007
- Your argument does not stand per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. We can't simply keep pages because an artist might grow to become the next Van Gogh. If he does become the next Van Gogh, then he gets a wikipedia page. The Filmaker 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, for 3 reasons: 1) the artist appears to meet the music criteria, 2) the artist has been covered by multiple independent sources (per Lexicon) and 3) when in doubt, don't delete. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 3 April 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.
