Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 6

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by New questions (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 8 April 2012 (→Template:Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:30, 8 April 2012 by New questions (talk | contribs) (→Template:Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2012 April 5 Deletion review archives: 2012 April 2012 April 7 >

6 April 2012

Richie Branson

This article was posted under the name of an article that was previously deleted. Despite the fact that this article is entirely different, and much more substantial in both content and sourcing from the previous one, it was speedily deleted. The fact is, this is a nerdcore hip-hop artist with as much, if not more, press exposure in the genre as other nerdcore artists with long-standing[REDACTED] pages. On top of that, he is a billboard-charting record producer/composer. He is verified on BMI, (short for Broadcast Music, Inc. a de-facto source of imformation as to who has ownership rights in a particular musical work) as a composer/songwriter on the record. BMI's official repertoire not only verifies (by his birth-name Marcus Brown II) as a composer on the work titled Homegurl (He Gotta), it also verifies Bone as the performing artist. ( http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=10104396&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID ) Also, Bone is on record by a reliable news source, San Antonio Express-News, himself stating Branson's involvement as a composer on the song ( http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Hip-hop-producer-beating-a-path-to-success-789593.php ).

The BMI source is satisfactory to me, and Bone's confirmation on record with a notable newspaper gives me no reason to doubt Branson's role as a composer in that song. Looking at the previous AfD discussion (which I agree was full of sockpuppet responses), editors cast doubt on the fact that the song charted because no page was cited directly from Billboard showing the song ever charted. The author provided a paywall restricted page from billboard.biz, which only further created doubt. In this incarnation, I provided a direct source from Billboard's official site shows the song charted. It clearly shows Homegurl (He Gotta) holding position 22 on the chart. ( http://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2010-03-06&order=gainer#/charts/rap-songs?chartDate=2010-02-27&order=gainer ) One of the editors claimed Billboard.com as the de-facto source of information as to whether a song charted or not. I agree with him, and thus I presented evidence from the de-facto source and not a paywall site.

Based on that, I'd argue that Branson meets criteria number 1 in WP:COMPOSER, because there is a de-facto source showing he as a composer on a song that another de-facto source verifies as having charted on a national level. Since the composition charted, I believe it to be notable. I feel even stronger about the subject's meeting criteria number 3 in WP:COMPOSER. Bone's page on the official Island Def Jam website verifies the composition was used as a basis for future recordings by three highly recognized grammy-award winning artists: Bun-B, The-Dream, and Rick Ross. I provided a source for that as well: http://www.islanddefjam.com/artist/discography_single.aspx?artistID=7410&productID=12297 That fact also wasn't present in the previous AfD discussion. It defies WP:COMMONSENSE to have any reason to doubt that 1) Branson was involved in the composition of the song "Homegurl (He Gotta)" and 2) The song charted on billboard. Two De-Facto sources and a reliable news source attest to that being fact.

I also believe the things he's accomplished in the nerdcore genre (none of which had occured prior to the previous article) further suggest notability, if not as a composer than certainly as a nerdcore hip-hop artist. His own music performed as an artist, completely unrelated to the billboard-charting song he produced, has been featured on a variety of notable anime and gaming-related web publications and shows, including Crunchyroll, Joystiq, TheForce.Net, The Jace Hall Show, Rich Johnston's BleedingCool, ComicsAlliance, Kotaku, io9, Anime Vice and more. I have included all those as sources in this article as well. None of those accomplishments had even happened when the previous article was created. Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing[REDACTED] articles of other nerdcore artists, I'd confidently argue that Branson is no less notable than most other artists in the genre. This article should not have been a candidate for speedy delete as it was not at all similar to the identically-named one previously deleted beforehand. ZachBrenner (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've asked the editor about significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but the only thing he provided was a link to a primary source that didn't mention Branson. The AfD was indeed plagued with WP:SPA fans who couldn't provide reliable secondary sources either. Jayjg 21:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Here goes:

Televised Story on affiliate KABB duscussing Branson's nerdcore endeavors: http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/features/streetscorner/videos/vid_213.shtml

Aside from the previous article discussing Branson's success as a producer, another San Antonio Express-News was written, also verifying Branson produced for Def Jam and discussing Branson's nerdcore endeavors:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Artist-trades-hip-hop-for-nerdcore-3455835.php

Crunchyroll review of Branson's recent nerdcore work. Crunchyroll is a notable source of anime news and a major supplier of streaming anime:

http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2012/03/17/feature-richie-bransons-the-wing-zero-ep-review

A piece by notable anime news site Anime Vice (parent company: Whiskey Media discussing Branson's latest nerdcore work and describing him as the most successful artist in the nerdcore genre:

http://www.animevice.com/news/listen-to-the-entire-gundam-rap-album-for-free/5928/

I've also confirmed repeated coverage of him on notable newsmagazine site Gawker and notable video game news show The Jace Hall Show as well. I can provide links to those if this isn't sufficient to determine that he is, in fact a notable nerdcore artist. I might also mention when you google "nerdcore", his site appears on the first page. In fact, as a nerdcore artist, his official site appears second only to MC Frontalot, the founder of the genre. My motion is to approve his article under the guideline that it he is specifically mentioned as a nerdcore hip-hop artist, given that he shares the same amount of notoriety, if not more, than the 'notable' nerdcore artists listed on the[REDACTED] page for the genre. In fact, the very[REDACTED] article for nerdcore seems to set the standard for a nerdcore artists's "notability" in the following sentence: "notability is somewhat hard to define in a nerdcore context". ZachBrenner (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Overturn and restore new article I remember the previous AfD discussion on this. In hindsight, the previous article probably should have been deleted. But, with the additional nerdcore success that occured since the last article, I'd say the author's updated article suffices. If anything, "Richie Branson" fits the notability guidelines inherent in the nerdcore article. I did a google news search on the term "nerdcore" and Richie Branson showed up more than any other artist. That, plus a lot of recent media coverage, seems to indicate that Richie is indeed a notable character in the context of the type of music he's making. Admittedly, nerdcore music appears to be an obscure sub-genre of music, but it is notable and it's difficult to see how this guy isn't one of the faces of that movement. That would allow him to qualify under #7 of WP:BAND. Because of that, I'd say restore under the author's pretense that he is notable in the context of nerdcore. In addition, the non-trivial press coverage he's received of his nerdcore work would qualify him under #1 in WP:BAND, also see note#1 there, it lists the BMI repertoire as an acceptable method of determining composition/ownership of a song. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment In addition, I've found the following englinsh and non-english non-trivial Richie Branson coverage from online secondary sources via Google News. BigShinyRobot's review of Branson's nerdcore work in their 'Spring Music Picks' article. Geeks of Doom's coverage of Branson's "Wing Zero EP". io9's coverage of Branson's "Wing Memories" song. Additional coverage of a nerdcore music video by Branson on San Antonio Express-News . Non-english coverage of Branson's "Cold Republic" on Polygamia.pl. Non-english coverage of Branson's music on onlinewelten.com. Playstation news site PSXextreme's coverage of Branson's "Letter to Squaresoft. Playstation Universe's coverage of Branson's music. Gawker media's Kotaku news coverage of richie's work. non-english coverage from notable magazine in france "Brain Magazine" (they have a fr.wikipedia.org article) featuring Richie Branson. This further supports his eligibility under WP:BAND UncommonlySmooth (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdur Raheem Green

This is absolutely preposterous. I may not be a hugely experienced Wikipedian, or great at finding secondary sources or other jargon/tasks you can throw at me, but this man meets the notability criteria. He is a hugely influential figure in the Muslim community, famous around the world for his speeches, he is a famous presenter on Islam Channel and Peace TV, he founded an important Islamic Academy, he is a frequent guest speaker on shows such as The Deen show, he is a key lecturer in the education academy he founded, and he is simply a renowned public speaker, one only needs to do a quick search on YouTube for his hundreds of talks and speeches which are given in front of audiences of thousands and are also televised. Googling his name in speech marks (so you get pages that list his exact full name) and you get 1m+ hits. Another editor informed me "One of the pages had 183 edits over 3 + years." and "It had a long edit history with a range of editors". Type his name into the google box and the first two predictive suggestions you get are "Abdur Raheem Green wiki" and "Abdur Raheem Green wikipedia" (that says it all, really). And you dare tell me he cannot have a Misplaced Pages article? I can't help but think that it's damn well obvious that this man would have an article if he was a Christian, Jew, or atheist speaker. http://www.peacetv.in/sp-abdurraheem_green.php http://www.islamessentials.org/instructors/abdurraheem-green/ http://islamevents.com/speakers/speaker_detail.php?spid=10 http://www.iera.org.uk/speakers_arg.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239543/The-fanatic-invited-jihad-cleric-address-British-students.html?ITO=1490 http://www.islamsgreen.org/ http://www.halaltube.com/speaker/abdur-raheem-green Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Userfy and improve I performed a search of the Google news archives and got 890 hits for Abdur Raheem Green (some are foreign language which doesn't really matter since we all have Google translate now). Based on what I'm seeing, the subject appears sufficiently notable for a Misplaced Pages article and the article should be undeleted and userfied so it can be brought up to proper standards. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, LGF needs to stop with their constant accusations of anti-Muslim bias aimed at Misplaced Pages-at large, which have been expressed both here and at ANI. Secondly, the state the article was in deserved a deletion, but I'm in agreement that we should userfy it, allow it to be impoved, and then moved back into mainspace when it's in a more suitable state. Giant Snowman 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment. LGW is apparently unwilling or unable to provide any reliable secondary sources indicating that this individual meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to reply and comment here.. Let's give an example. Imagine a hypothetical article about X, made by a contributor Y. Just because Y may not have the skills/experience/patience to find lots of "reliable secondary sources" doesn't affect whether article X is or isn't notable, surely. So I can only apologise that I do not have the knowledge/experience/acumen to find you what it is you are looking for, but I don't believe that in any way reflects on Green's notability Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed to reply, you should participate in the discussion, after all this is an article you want created. I've found a lot of reliable secondary sources covering Green and added them below, this should be plenty to get started with. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not but let's forget about that for a second, stop commenting on contributors and look at the article's subject. I found a number of Google News Archive articles on him, so if we're purely objective then I think we have an article here. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't actually have any such sources yet; we would need to actually see them to make a decision about whether the subject meets WP:BIO. Jayjg 22:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, here's a link to a full bio in Republika , Here's an Australian ABC transcript of a TV broadcast with a phone interview of Green , an Australian.com article about Green , New Zealand Herald article about him , a Malay language article about him , and a short Jamican news article about him . Note these are just articles that directly cover Green and don't include all the other ones that are about him or discuss him in connection with other subjects. The foreign language articles are easily translated into somewhat understandable format with Google translate. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - if this is undeleted could someone userfy both versions of the article (the original one and the newer one) so I can merge both and build something appropriate? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Undelete – A search in Factiva finds 91 articles in the press from 2005 to 2012, many primarily about this person. This is enough to establish notability, the rest (proper writing and sourcing of the article) is up to the interested editors. I see no reason to keep it deleted. Zero 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Undelete both versions and let them work on it. Article has a long multi-editor, multi-year edit history. Secretlondon (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, those are sufficient sources. I see a strong argument for undeletion in this case.—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for undeleting Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Undelete As per WP:N, it is necessary that sources be likely, not that they be cited. It is only once an article is written that WP:V comes into force. I've noticed once before that Misplaced Pages seems to have some mysterious undercurrent of objection to considering people known for public speaking as notable. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Support

I discovered this in the "perennial requests" page so you could say I found it in a manner that suggested that I should not be attempting a DRV for this template. However, after finding that this and its variants are often used in the Japanese Misplaced Pages and probably many other language Wikipedias, I found them very useful in understanding what they are saying, and was wondering why there did not exist a version on the English Misplaced Pages, so the perennial requests page notified me that it did exist some time in the past, which is why I am filing this DRV right now.

In any case, the major reason why I find that there is a usefulness to comment icons that outweights the disadvantages, as well as the Template:Oppose as well as the theoretical Template:Comm (short for "comment," a much better name than Template:Object) is that to those who are not so good at English, it enables people to follow the discussion much more easily than if they were not there. Although this is the English Misplaced Pages, we cannot expect everyone to be native speakers in English, just like how the Japanese Misplaced Pages cannot expect all of its users to speak perfect Japanese (I can understand about 50% of Japanese writing, and did not know the word for "support" in Japanese, but the image definitely helped). For example, on page here in the Japanese Misplaced Pages, even if you do not understand what they are saying at all, you can at least know where they are making a comment supporting or opposing a certain suggestion. As can be seen on that page, the icons especially help in understanding the gist of what is said―they are not used for voting, but merely elucidate the conversation.

In terms of encouraging voting and such, I would say these icons encourage voting no more than simply writing "support" or "oppose" (or any of the other phrases like "keep," "delete," etc.) in bold, which we do already, and which newcomers quick come to copy in discussions. If we truly want to get rid of voting, we should all stop engaging in that practice - as long as we continue, this is only to make it more clear, especially to those who are not native in English. Thus, they do not perform any function other than something similar to the icons commonly used in the sockpuppet investigations pages, which I find useful in summarizing what is said. Furthermore, even if they do not need to be used in AfD discussions, they clearly (as in the example I have given previously) have a positive usages in article talk pages, where the argument that "they are useless unless everyone uses them" is invalid since they are not used in an vote-like sense on the talk pages in the first place.

The more major reason given in the previous discussion was the load time. Given that the images themselves are small, I do not think that this is an issue - the bigger issue is the pages themselves getting long. That is what tends to slow down my browser, not small images like this. I have experienced no problem with loading times in my experience of pages that have used these icons.

(For references, the Japanese Misplaced Pages does currently use two sets of templates, one for comments on talk pages listed in the documentation here, and one for AfD discussions listed here.)

New questions? 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment With regards to AfD discussions, I found them extremely useful since I did not know a significant number of the Japanese words used there, like "speedy delete," "keep," or "delete a particular revision" until I saw the words used next to the icons, as in the page here.--New questions? 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Japanese Misplaced Pages, actually; of the languages I speak, fr.wiki uses these templates but de.wiki doesn't. Personally I don't see a good reason to object to these templates being created, but I don't care strongly either way.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Your only new argument - that bolding keep and delete already encourages vote-like behavior, so it's ok that these templates that encourage it even more are ok - isn't particularly persuasive. Yes, vote bolding is tolerated. So is exceeding the speed limit by five or ten miles an hour. That doesn't mean it's ok to drive 120 in a 35. (Bolding comment, as you do above, is particularly counterproductive - by doing so, you're drawing more attention to the simple fact that you made a comment than you do to what you actually said!) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The nominator presents more arguments than just that one, actually.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- But no other new ones. Both the language and load-time arguments were addressed in the very first tfd. (And he misses the point of the load-time argument anyway. What slows things down isn't an image being displayed a thousand times on an afd log page, it's another template being transcluded an extra thousand times.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  - And, looking closer at the tfd, I see that the bolding was addressed there as well. Speedy endorse; nominator provides no new arguments, just asserts that the previous consensuses were wrong, exactly as Perennial requests says not to do. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    - I gave you an example showing that it is not encouraging vote-like behavior - on that Japanese discussion page that I linked to, it is used to highlight discussion points, not to "vote" for anything, and it certainly did not slow down my loading time.--New questions? 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
      - I'll see your ja:WP:VFD and raise you commons:C:FPC. This particular argument, that they encourage the perception that discussions are a vote, is the single most discussed issue about these templates; a single counterexample is patently inadequate to overturn on this basis. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
        Commons is different from Misplaced Pages, since commons can be about voting, without adding a rationale. Perhaps the previous discussions were based on the perception of how they were used in commons, without looking at how it would be applied to Misplaced Pages itself. When it was used on Misplaced Pages itself, as on the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and as well as the French Misplaced Pages that I looked into, it was not used for drive-by voting. Rather, they all had reasons attached to them. These are not just "a single counterexample," but rather the more applicable examples than commons, since commons has different practices about voting.--New questions? 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    - Also, I did not find the language issue addressed adequately in the previous TfD - just brought up a tiny bit, and ignored.--New questions? 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
      - It was directly addressed by Cryptic, ALoan, Silversmith, and Fir0002 in the first tfd, by Grappler in this truncated tf in 2006, by O in this tfd in late 2007, and by Metroplitan90 in the 2008 September 10 drv. Exactly how much discussion would you consider adequate? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
        It seems like those were arguments saying "everyone who comes here can perfectly understand English," which strongly rang as a false statement to me since I went to the Japanese Misplaced Pages without knowing Japanese very well and found them very helpful, and I suspect that there are many more people who cannot speak English very well on en.wiki than people like me who go to ja.wiki without speaking Japanese very well.--New questions? 02:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think we'll be speedy-endorsing based on a TFD that dates back to 2005 and was last reviewed in 2008. Particularly where the logic used to justify the deletion was rather shaky: these templates can be used to reduce discussions to votes, but we shouldn't delete things just because they can be misused. I don't particularly mind which result we get to but I think we should get there based on clearer thinking than has so far been evident.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I'd thought the last drv was more recent than that. (There was one on 2009 January 14, but that's hardly better.) There have been much more recent deletion discussions for substantially identical templates, though; the latest I can find is Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 19#Template:Rfasupport. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, after looking through one of these discussions, I found the comment, "the bigger underlying reason for these kinds of templates being deleted over and over again is because the English Misplaced Pages is not multilingual and therefore not useful." I somewhat laughed at that comment - English Misplaced Pages, not multilingual? I know that there are more than just a few here who are not so good with English, and my experience at the Japanese Misplaced Pages would have been much more confusing without those kinds of templates.--New questions? 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a strawman, you've picked on one comment made (I can't see it in the two discussions listed in the previous post) and basing and argument around that. The reason for deletion has as far as I know nothing about being multi-lingual, so knocking down that strawman isn't helpful. I'd actually argue your point about making it easier to understand if not native in the language is just a reinforcement of it being about voting. If you can't even understand enough of the language to see a general sentiment being expressed, then the chances of you understanding the detail of the argument, any nuance etc. is pretty much non-existant, you are wanting to boil their argument down to a tick or a cross. If you take it one step further look at a typical DRV here, there are huge numbers of different sentiments bolded, certainly more complex that can be shown with a simple graphic. However for the sake of argument let's assume if can be a tick or a cross, then without actually understanding the language and the argument what would a tick mean? Would it mean I support the argument of the nominator or would it mean I support the result of the deletion debate? Who's not to say they are used ambiguously - indeed within DRV I've see people say to support undeletion, or to support outcome of the debate, without actually understanding the expression of the words the ticks and indeed bolded sentiments are meaningless. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, as I said from the beginning, my Japanese is 50% good enough so I can understand enough most of what people are saying in their comments, but I did not know certain vocabulary words like "support," "speedy delete," etc. so it helped in that way. It allowed for me to more quickly understand the more general idea of the rest of the comment without danger of misconceiving what they were saying.

That makes no sense to me, either you can "understand enough most of what people are saying" or not. If you don't understand their general sentiment, or key vocabulary terms for such debates (like "support") without a little graphic then I'd suspect it's the latter. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times I need to explain myself to make myself clear, but as I said previously, yes I can understand most of what they are saying, but the graphic helped me understand it more quickly and prevented misconceptions since I did not know vocabulary words like "keep" or "support" etc.--New questions? 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Even unrelated to the language issue, I think there is another reason why saying "support" and "oppose" in bold is a good idea and it has nothing to do with voting. It is because written language is ambiguous in tone and sentiment, and this practice prevents comments from being interpreted more positively or negatively than they should be. For example, saying "comment" rather than "oppose" lets the reader know not to interpret the comment more negatively than necessary. If someone can at least understand the general idea of what is said in the comments, but does not know certain vocabulary words like "support" or "speedy delete," (as was my case on the Japanese Misplaced Pages), the graphic can help prevent misconceptions in that regards.
If you would like to say that "multi-lingual was not the major argument," I would like to say that it seems like the more major argument in them so far has been "I don't like it."--New questions? 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Again another strawman, no one is saying not to bold sentiments, in fact it's pretty standard practice. Maybe the argument is ultimately an "I don't like it" coupled of course with the reason why people don't like it, which is a perfectly valid argument in such debates about the mechanics of the way[REDACTED] works, the preferences of the community is significant. Your argument seems to be "I like it" and "I want to use[REDACTED] to help me believe my understandanding of foreign languages is better than it is". --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are saying that I am arguing against a strawman that was not the main point, then please at least point out what was the main point. Also, I am not sure what you are trying to interpret my argument as, but if I was unclear, then to make it more clear: my argument is that these icons can help people who can generally understand English but do not know of certain vocabulary words like "keep" or "speedy delete."--New questions? 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dub FX

Dub FX is a notable artist who sells out gigs in many countries (I'll just add one example - Athens, Greece, Oct '11 ). He has 440,000 followers on Facebook - DubFX (compare Wax Tailor, who 'only' has 170,000 followers (here) yet has a Misplaced Pages page), and has released several albums - albums list. All this, yet the page was deleted due to "lack of notability" (here). I'm sorry, I could not find the deletion discussion, but I would be interested to see who participated, how long it lasted, and the reasons. In any case, I feel the figures I provide speak for themselves, so please re-create the page! Thank you :-) BigSteve (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dub FX. The closing admin, Martijn Hoekstra, has indicated that he will restore the article per WP:SOFTDELETE on request, maybe you should ask him first? Procedurally, I endorse the AfD closure (nobody opposed deletion), but could support a relist or restore if somebody in this DRV finds reliable sources that could make this person pass WP:BAND. The Google News archive search indicates that there may be non-English sources about him. The above links however are unhelpful, as commercial success and Facebook followers are not relevant in terms of our inclusion requirements. Sandstein 10:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow sourced recreation If it is re-written using sources, there won't be any discussion of notability. Entirely OR here: taking a look at industry sources, the cat is marginal by WP standards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Endorse deletion. Perhaps userfy I was the original nominator for deletion. This group fails WP:BAND, and even my scan of foreign sources could not establish any notability as per Wikipediai standards. Facebook followers is NOT a sign of notability, it's maybe a sign of local popularity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)