The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
A majority at DRV overturned the previous keep closure for this article as improper, but there was not sufficient consensus for outright deletion. Hence, pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, this article is relisted for new consideration at this AfD. Please consult the DRV discussion before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above is on general principle. In this particular instance, there was apparent egregious sockpuppetry from marketroids at the "label" that released this guy's recordings. The logic is "Hey, if this spamming works, I get valuable exposure. If it doesn't work, the article gets tossed and I'm no worse off than before. Plus, the deletion process might waste a lot of their time, but I'm getting paid for this, so there's no loss for me. There's no disincentive whatsoever, so go for it!". There has to be a "loss" branch and so if the socking is confirmed, not only should the article be deleted, but any music articles having to do with this "label" or its performers should be banned from Wikipedia for at least a year, regardless of notability. Phr ( talk) 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
A majority at DRV overturned the previous keep closure for this article as improper, but there was not sufficient consensus for outright deletion. Hence, pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, this article is relisted for new consideration at this AfD. Please consult the DRV discussion before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above is on general principle. In this particular instance, there was apparent egregious sockpuppetry from marketroids at the "label" that released this guy's recordings. The logic is "Hey, if this spamming works, I get valuable exposure. If it doesn't work, the article gets tossed and I'm no worse off than before. Plus, the deletion process might waste a lot of their time, but I'm getting paid for this, so there's no loss for me. There's no disincentive whatsoever, so go for it!". There has to be a "loss" branch and so if the socking is confirmed, not only should the article be deleted, but any music articles having to do with this "label" or its performers should be banned from Wikipedia for at least a year, regardless of notability. Phr ( talk) 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply