Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kurtagić (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice to renominate. There is a large misinterpretation in policy in this AFD that makes it impossible to close as anything other than no consensus and that is that sources on any subject, British author or not, do not have to be in English. There is no requirement in any policy that sources on the English Wikipedia or about subjects whose primary language is English must have English sources. WP:V requires that information be verifiable, not that it be easily verified and WP:RS makes no mention of language constraints. v/r - TP 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alex Kurtagić
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable columnist. Sourced largely to subject's own site. Previous AfD only received a single !vote, from a user who is now blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would consider his label Supernal Music to be possibly notable, having released quite a few notable bands’ music. And he contributed to an Ancient album (notable, too), both to the cover art and one song. --217 /83 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kurtagić is not only a columnist -- he is also an author, a musician and the founder of a fairly known record label. In totality this makes him surely notable -- and besides -– at what point is an author per se notable? If one looks at the amazon reviews, one can see, that he is also not "unremarkable" as an author. His novel "Mister" e.g. was reviewed by the journal "Sezession" of the German Institut für Staatspolitik. Regards, 87.150.245.253 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I ignored the refs from his own website and looked through the others. the problem is that these seem to be articles by Kurtagic, not about him. Getting lots of your articles online is not evidence of notability. I see no evidence that Kurtagic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources.  Tigerboy1966  01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed ALL primary sources and the attached information. 87.150.246.96 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. The article is much better now and I am wavering about whether to change my !vote. Source 4 is just a mention. The other 3 are in French/German so they are hard for me to evaluate. Surely a British-based writer should have one decent English Language source?  Tigerboy1966  00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it depends on what counts, it depends on what one considers a "decent English language source" ... In a certain sense it's surely an arbitrary judgement; e.g. he wrote for Taki's Magazine (like the authors Lawrence Auster, John Derbyshire, Paul Gottfried ...) and there is a short info sentence about him - does that count, is that decent? 87.150.255.113 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The issue has a degree of subjectivity, otherwise we wouldn't have discussions, but it isn't arbitrary. One point is clear: sources to establish notability need to be about the subject, not by the subject.  Tigerboy1966  11:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you also read Scientific American (well I read the German edition) and there are usually infoboxes about the author of the article - and despite the article being by the subject itself, I trust the infobox... For example, when Taki's magazine says: "Alex Kurtagic is the author of the novel Mister and is the founder and director of Supernal Music." - can't that be used as source that he founded Supernal Music? (letting aside notability-info concerning this source), Regards, 87.150.252.230 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can not be used to prove notability. Wikieditindia (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After the reworking of the article you can ONLY find secondary sources. 87.150.246.96 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After the rework the article solves the issues of primary sources but as user:Tigerboy1966 already noted above, the reference for a British writer has to be from the English language RS. Which leads to the issue of WP:N. In fact, the article in the present form does not have any assertion of importance or notability. Hence I stick to my !vote due the lack of importance.Wikieditindia (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're surprising me - do you have to find a sentence like "This man is important" in "The Economist" or what ;) ? One can deduce from the gathered information that he is notable. Take a look at the category English bloggers – how many of those do you want to sort out? 87.150.255.113 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have passed your "arguments" against my abilities to surprise you, inabilities to deduce the importance and the like. The purpose of this comment is to point out WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you have any valid arguments to present here I encourage you to present it in a constructive way, to the effect of making my points invalid. Simply, rewrite the article to assert the importance with citations from WP:RS and/or bring out the references here itself, so that the notability of the subject can be "deduced".Wikieditindia (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification, now you don't surprise me any longer - I had not intended to be personal, but you make me answer like this - you seem to be rather arrogant, unfriendly and apodictic - hopefully only today. Well, the sources are not English, but you don't provide arguments as why you think they were not reliable.
 * I just saw that three English language sources were added, I wonder how you'll evade those (probably the publishers need your approval to be able to issue relevant sources, n'est ce pas? || you simply don't answer (good one!)).
 * I encourage you to actually substantiate your statement; you can't invalidate arguments by using scare-quotes. Do you have the ability to elaborate on your statement, not simply point to wiki rules as if your interpretation was nature's law? Try to be constructive and add something valuable. shanti*=3, 87.150.255.113 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref#1 is in German, and as far as the Google translation goes it sports a banner 'Right is Right' on its homepage. I doubt its reliability as a source to prove importance of an author. Ref #2,3,4,8,9,10 are all related to music,can we consider these sites as reliable? I doubt so. I am not experienced in editing music related articles. So I cannot say about the reliability unquestionably.  Ref#5 is written by the subject himself. Ref#6 and Ref#7 are websites having extreme views on matters of Race. Reliability in question. Regarding sources please go through WP:RS and WP:V. As to examples of reliable sources see WP:News_sources/Europe. Wikieditindia (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kurtagic has been involved with music — as a musician, album cover illustrator, record producer — since 1995, so the sources to substantiate notability in this area will necessarily be sources related to music. He is mentioned in three separate books, by three different intellectually independent authors, published by three different unconnected publishers, all of which are mainstream. In my opinion, that meets the criteria. Sources #6 and #7 refer to Kurtagic as a speaker; they are reliable as evidence of Kurtagic addressing national right-wing events, the way they would be reliable as evidence of the author having right-wing views and being known overseas. As evidence that should be judged independently of whether or not his views, or those of the organisations in question, are agreeable to everyone, and consideration must be given that both American Renaissance and the National Policy Institute meet notability criteria and their respective past conferences have been subject to media discussion. Source #5 is perhaps not the best one, I admit; a secondary source would need to be found. Hart, aber ungerecht (talk)
 * Let me be clear. Ref#2 sources its article from the website of supernal Music.The article states about closing of the label and the label getting a pre-order for 136 sales! Does that makes the subject notable?! Ref#3 also does not seem like a reliable secondary source. The google translation does not help that much. Could someone translate? Ref#4 Makes a passing mention of the subject. This is from  same website Ref#3. Ref#5 leads to an article written by the subject about his translation work. Ref #6 mentions the subject just once as speaker. I am not talking here about its reliability as a secondary source. Ref#7 lists the subject once and adds a line as his description. Ref#8 mentions his name as speaker, once.  Ref #9,10,11 are not accessible for me. And presumably those also have passing mentions about him when talking about labels in general. Bottomline - These references, even combined, does not meet the criteria WP:BIO which states that


 * because 1)not even a single reliable secondary source let alone multiple sources and 2) None covers the subject substantially ( I doubt any of these covers the subject even modestly). I too agree he may be a speaker and a music label director, but I fail to see his notability in those fields to have a biography of him in an encyclopedia meeting the criteria mentioned elsewhere. Wikieditindia (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Source #2 is not reliable and should be removed: the source draws from an announcement by the label where it merely states its decision to cancel scheduled releases in protest against internet piracy. The pre-sales figure is for a previously unknown band on the label.
 * I wonder if sources #3 and #4 are really needed since there is no question that Kurtagic is a musician and an author. If this needs supporting, then I suggest a discography and a bibliography. But the issue is notability.
 * Regarding sources #6-8, evidence of the subject as a speaker. Source #6 quotes the subject at length, it also misattributes some of his other remarks to another speaker (the transcript was published elsewhere). The subject's public appearances are connected to his activity as an author and commentator, and this is also referred to in sources #1,2,3,9, and 10. It's hard to imagine why an author would be flown overseas by conference organizers to address a national events if the author in question is not in some way notable.
 * Sources #9-11: As you say that (1) you have no experience editing music articles, and (2) you don't have access to these book sources, I propose that an evaluation be made by individuals knowledgeable on the topic and able to access the sources in question. Source #10, page 127, "Everyone used the internet to buy records: Supernal Music was an on-line retailer (and underground record label) they all recognized and used ... The fact that Kurtagic has been one of the standard-bearers of elitist ideology in black metal..." A further reference occurs later in the book. Kurtagic is also quoted on page p. 64 of Source #9.
 * On this basis, while there there are clearly problems with some of the sources (#2,3,5), for the most part the criteria seems met, since the subject is (1) covered in secondary sources that Wikipedia classes as reliable, intellectually independent of each others, and independent of the subject (Sources #6,9,10,11); (2) independent sources, good and bad, show the subject is a topic of regular commentary. I suggest replacing the faulty sources for better ones. Hart, aber ungerecht (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
 * " ..since the subject is (1) covered in secondary.." I fear the coverage you mention is not substantial enough. Anyway, let us see what other editors have to say. Wikieditindia (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Please don't forget to mark your !vote if you want to keep the article.
 * Does that mean that you, Wikieditindia, don’t consider Supernal Music (having released quite a few notable bands’ music) or the contribution to a notable Ancient album to be “any assertion of importance or notability”, or did you ignore these and just focus on his work as a writer? --217 /83 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 217 says "Supernal Music (having released quite a few notable bands’ music)" I am not sure whether releasing notable bands' music makes the label notable and in turn adds notability to the director. In any case, unsubstantiated attributes like author, speaker, musician, publisher, etc should be removed and the article may remain as a line stating the "subject is the director of Supernal Music which released music from bands like .... ... .. etc. ". Wikieditindia (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems evident that a record label becomes notable by virtue of the bands and the albums it releases and promotes. That's what a label does, after all. Thus, if there is a roster of notable bands, and half a dozen releases by those bands, and the bands in question were first signed (or "discovered") by that label, it's safe to consider the label notable. With regards to the descriptors "musician", "speaker", and "author", in this case these are not unsubstantiated attributes, since there are four albums, conferences, and two published books to back them up. The only attribute that needs an acceptable source is "publisher", and upon reflection that should perhaps be removed until such a source meeting Wikipedia's criteria is found. Hart, aber ungerecht (talk)


 * See my comment above. Wikieditindia (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * REF#1 The German "Institut für Staatspolitik" is a conservative institution, they do say "right is right", so what? I know their articles (not only the headline) - considering an open and free discourse they are much less extreme than someone I know now - they do not simply discard people and sources who self-identify as "left".
 * To disapprove sources about a musician and the director of a record label because they are related to music is simply illogical. First you ask, whether they are reliable, later you simple declare them to not be - Ablaze and Spirit of Metal have their own Wikipedia-articles; they are independent of the subject (in fact they criticize him in the referenced source).
 * There are enough other sources already, so let's forget in this respect sources 6 and 7 - but you simply discard those saying there were extreme - so what was NPOV all about?
 * REF#2 You obviously misread the second source and I don't blame you for that. What this number refers to is one album (by the way 134 not 136), which is discussed in that paragraph. It's a whole article about label/director and the fact that it announces the closing doesn't change the notability referring to the bands it released. Why doesn't it seem reliable to you?
 * REF#3 The French source (Spirit of Metal) gives info about Kurtagic being a writer, publisher, painter and criticizes his musical compositions and his right-wing views. Why doesn't it seem reliable to you?
 * REF#4 is an info-page about Kurtagic's band Benighted Leams, date of foundation, location, published albums - what is not reliable about that one?
 * REF # 6,7,8 are just used in the article to show him as a speaker, you mention the source, but don't contradict that.
 * REF #9, #10, #11 are not accessible to me either, but we both can see, that they are reliable, independent publishers.
 * Now you simply declare sources to be not reliable without giving reasons. And you simply declare the coverage to be not substantial. The whole article in the magazine of the German Institute für Staatspolitik is about the subject and its novel. The mentioned sources in the Ablaze magazine and Spirit of Medal magazine deal exclusively with the subject. So please provide reliable, substantial reasons for your statements.
 * Have you ever thought about the fact that the application of rules implies the interpretation of those very rules? Well, I can also say: please go through WP:RS and WP:V etc.
 * 87.150.252.230 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Looking at your other contributions one can see - of your less than 100 edits where did you actually contribute information to an article? It's mostly deletion proposals - and other Wikipedians complain. Is that what you call being constructive? Thank God there are not more contributors like you were to this point. Try to be constructive and actually CONTRIBUTE and ADD information.
 * I did not say sources related to music are unreliable. I said those are all related to music and I am not able to ascertain the reliability. Apologies if I was bit ambiguous. Anyway, I think I have cleared the confusion in subsequent reply by dealing clearly with each source individually. I have searched WP:RS/N and found this. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61. Clearly I am not the one who is doubting the reliability of Ref#1. Incidentally the deletion discussion Articles_for_deletion/Mister_(novel) from which the reliability of source was suspected is about the novel by the subject of this article. And that reference is also the same to which now this IP is pointing for notability of the subject. And AFAIK, that was a reason why the article got deleted. Wikieditindia (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Please see WP:ATTP PPS: I can see a seemingly COI pattern in edits by people who are arguing for keep.
 * You said (quote) "Ref #2,3,4,8,9,10 are all related to music,can we consider these sites as reliable? I doubt so." When you answer your own question saying "I doubt so" that means that you doubt the reliability.
 * You have also doubted the reliability of the German source on this very page -- and now you found a summarizing quotation about several very different sources, whereat the author explicitly states that he can't read the German one and asks "for a second opinion on the matter".
 * So how can you maintain that "you're clearly not the one" doubting the reliability? I don't want to hurt your feelings -- but to me this sounds disingenuous. And looking at your contributions again I do think that the criticism I stated is justified.
 * Furthermore there is of course a difference between the notability of a single work of an author and the author himself -- you should have noted that many individuals who also wrote books do not have an article on their single works. I also do not think that his novel should have its own article -- like many other novels by authors who are notable. 87.150.245.234 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2012 (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.