Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Soderberg

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Please note however that I have counted the anonymous vote, because I see no evidence of it being cast in bad faith. Nonetheless, there is clearly a rough consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will Soderberg

Artist vanity, I don't think that CSD past to here's the VFD =(. Delete, no evidence of notability, no allmusic.com or artistsdirect.com entry. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Friday 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline, yes, but I think that artists can be "notable" even when they work outside the music biz paradigm. Grace Note 03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. If he were notable for any reason, it would have been established immediately; but the only rationale given for his notability is hopelessly POV. --malathion ^talk 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity, if over 10 years of making noises counts as an entry, wheres mine? Followed links led to CDR's by the group, for sale. Hamster Sandwich 05:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is a difficult one. While he has been recording since the late 1980s and playing live since then, his lack of an Allmusic profile indicates that he probably just fails to meet Wikimusic Project guidelines. Weak Delete. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Googling this artist reveals published discs, tours, interviews with him etc. I don't see how it could be vanity - however the article needs to be re-written to be encyclopedic.24.215.252.158 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You must be signed in to vote. Anyway, delete as vanity. Binadot 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure that's entirely true, anon voters are allowed to vote and contribute to consensus (as Wikipedia is not a democracy) but there votes are usually given less credibility by and the admin closing the VFD. Anyways, the consensus seems pretty clear on this one so I guess it doesn't really mattter (I may just be beating a dead horse). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, that CSD did pass, and this article contains no assertion of notability. See the WP:CSD page as amended after the poll, and the examples cited for this particular new policy. -Splash 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It does contain some assertion of notability if you click through the links and what not, to defend my actions, I knew that the vanity page had passed but wasn't entirely confident that this fell under it as proposal C-3 did not pass. Just to clarify =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. -Splash 22:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. http://white-rose.net/shows.shtml indicates that they've toured in two countries, satisfying WP:MUSIC. 900 google hits is pretty notable, too. Pburka 00:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I'm almost inclined to agree with you there except the page in its current state should be deletable... I'll see if I have some extra time to rewrite it today, until then, my vote remains. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Radiant_>|< 12:27, July 21, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.