The result was Keep and Cleanup. utcursch | talk 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It is not written from a neutral point of view (uses words like "legendary", "immensely popular", and "finest musicians" without providing sources like polls to prove how popular he is). It also fails to include a reliable source. The only cited source in the article is an entry on the article in the IASO Records website (I suspect the musician is somehow involved with the company), which does not qualify as a reliable source. I originally requested it be speedily deleted, but this request was denied after the author blanked the page, removing the request. After a while, I used {{prod}}, but the author removed the request, saying that an addition made by an unregistered IP editor was enough to make the article acceptable. If you oppose the article's deletion, please remember to explain why: this is not a vote. If you think you can improve the article, be bold and edit it. Please examine the article carefully before participating in this AfD discussion. Finally, please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete - The article does not merit deletion on the strength of IASO records as a notable source. The consideration is whether the band satisfies
WP:MUSIC 5 & 7, in order to be deemed worth keeping, and whether this is
verifiable, in order to be kept. As indie labels go, IASO appears marginal at best, even cosidering the geographical context, and seems to be a remix outfit - it has no other major artists. Other IASO related entries could bear a little scrutiny. -
Tiswas(
t)
09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep and Cleanup. utcursch | talk 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It is not written from a neutral point of view (uses words like "legendary", "immensely popular", and "finest musicians" without providing sources like polls to prove how popular he is). It also fails to include a reliable source. The only cited source in the article is an entry on the article in the IASO Records website (I suspect the musician is somehow involved with the company), which does not qualify as a reliable source. I originally requested it be speedily deleted, but this request was denied after the author blanked the page, removing the request. After a while, I used {{prod}}, but the author removed the request, saying that an addition made by an unregistered IP editor was enough to make the article acceptable. If you oppose the article's deletion, please remember to explain why: this is not a vote. If you think you can improve the article, be bold and edit it. Please examine the article carefully before participating in this AfD discussion. Finally, please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete - The article does not merit deletion on the strength of IASO records as a notable source. The consideration is whether the band satisfies
WP:MUSIC 5 & 7, in order to be deemed worth keeping, and whether this is
verifiable, in order to be kept. As indie labels go, IASO appears marginal at best, even cosidering the geographical context, and seems to be a remix outfit - it has no other major artists. Other IASO related entries could bear a little scrutiny. -
Tiswas(
t)
09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
reply