Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C418


 * 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   delete. causa sui (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

C418

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article is not notable, in my mind. The closest he comes to meeting our notability standards for music biographies (WP:MUSICBIO) is point 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. He composed the soundtrack for Minecraft. However, the caveat of point 10 is that if they are not notable beyond that, we should merge them to the work's article. There is no coverage of him outside of minor write ups about the soundtrack to the game. Almost all the sources are self-published and non-reliable. This should be deleted with any relevant information merged to the game's page with no prejudice to recreation if notability can be established later on down the road. either way (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He's not only notable for the Minecraft OST, his other music is listened to a lot, search C418 in YouTube and see how many views the videos have. And only one of the sources are self published, that's not "most' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources and are not used to establish notability (though reliably published interviews can be used in the article). YouTube views (along with Google hits, site ranking, etc.) are also not a measure of notability. WP:GNG requires secondary, reliable, significant coverage sources on the subject itself. So far I do not see any at all. Minecraft OST, however, is notable, but Rosenfeld does not "inherit" notability. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one self-published reference used seven times plus two outside sources (one of which is used twice). Until 5 minutes before you made this comment, there was another self-published reference as well, so I stand by my "most" comment.  And I fully agree with everything H3llkn0wz said.  YouTube views is not a notability standard.  I tried looking for news on the Google News archive and can find next to nothing (nothing relevant jumps to the top right away with just "C418"...nothing relevant at all with "C418" + rosenfield...and 6 hits with "C418" + Minecraft, none of which give him notability, just existence).  When I Google him, almost everything is his self published materials (a Twitter, a blog, a Facebook, etc.) or a reference to Minecraft.  Nothing establishes him as a notable person outside of his composing of the Minecraft soundtrack.  either way (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was afraid this was going to happen. Unfortunately, this article does fail WP:N and WP:V, especially when it comes to a WP:BIO. I'm afraid I will have to say Delete for now. C418 is a great composer, but his stuff is just not notable. More articles surface, Minecraft gets released and maybe it would be enough notability to write another article.An alternate to deleting and keeping a redlink, we could just redirect it to the Minecraft article. Just have to make sure C418 is mentioned in that article somewhere. Yes, C418 isn't known just for the Minecraft soundtrack, but to many, that's the only thing he's known for, i.e.: the reason for this AfD. JguyTalkDone 11:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2011 (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) 01:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete per Whpq. At the very least, the article should be merged to the game's article, as per nom. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with what Whpq wrote. --Ryan.germany (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2011 (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.